

/1 


3 



















' 

Bl ■ • 
















































\ 


































, 









































. 






.. 

4 • 



































✓ 


, 







, 










* 























‘ 










* 

» 






' 





. 



* 


























m 

* k • > 

• • 























. 


































REASONS 

i 

IN FAVOUR OF 

A NEW TRANSLATION 


OF 


THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 




BY 


Sir JAMES BLAND BURGES, Bart. 




‘ THAT NECESSARY WORK, A NEW TRANSLATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.” 

Bishop Lowth's Prelim . Dissert, to %aiah f p. 6g. 


PRINTED 


) ^ > 

LONDON: 

FOR BUDD AND CALKIN, 

100 , PALL-MALL. 


1819. 







* 


K 











diluted by T. C. HANSARD, relelrboroiigh-conrt, Fleet street, London. 







TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE 


LORD GRENVILLE, 

<§*c. fyc. fyc. 

v i % * > t . 

»• f 

\ I V r ? '• 

i. i * • 

My Lord, 

' r\ 4 • y 

i I • V » * * 

O 

Your Lordship’s eminence as a 

statesman and a scholar, your dig¬ 
nified situation as Chancellor of the 
University of Oxford, and, above 
all, your character as a man and a 
^hristian, naturally point you out 
as the patron of a work, the object 
of which is the attainment of truth. 
I therefore beg leave to inscribe to 
your Lordship the reasons which 
have occurred to me in favour of a 
measure, the importance and expe¬ 
diency of which have long been re¬ 
cognized by many grave and learned 


I 


V 




D E 1) i 0 A T 1 O N. 


au ihori ties, and for which the cir¬ 


cumstances of the present time seem 

1 1 

peculiarly to call. I cannot submit 

• rr f < • t 

them to the consideration • of any 
one more qualified to form a correct 
judgment of them; and I feel an 
additional motive for doing- this, as 
it affords me an opportunity of 
avowing the high consideration and 
respect with which I have the 
honour to he, 

« T * » ■* 

+ * * £ i if • •* * » , ~ 


* * 




1 4 f 
. % 


My Lord, 

xi’l . - - y * i • * - 

Your Lordship’s 


Most obedient,* 




* • ^ 


. Humble Servatvt, 



JAMES BLAND BURGES 




t 


■ =^ -”' ; r- . — . — ■ i ..nu 


REASONS, &c. 

„ ... 


As all our dearest interests, both temporal and 
eternal, depend on our obedience to the com¬ 
mands of our Maker revealed to us in the 
Holy Scriptures, nothing can be of more serious 
importance than to ascertain the fidelity of those 
versions of the Sacred Text, through which 
alone a knowledge of those commands can be 
acquired by the majority of mankind. As many 
well-disposed persons, among whom were in¬ 
cluded many of our most learned divines, en¬ 
tertained considerable doubts on this point, the 
publication of Mr. Bellamy’s new translation 
of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew 
was regarded favourably by them, and was 
continuing to rise in general estimation, when 
there appeared, in the Quarterly Review, No. 37, 
a most virulent attack upon it, evidently cal¬ 
culated to crush it at its outset, and to inti¬ 
midate those by whom it had been patronized, from 

B 

* 










2 


affording to it any further countenance or pro¬ 
tection. The high respectability and widely ex¬ 
tended circulation of the periodical work, in 
which this criticism made its appearance, natu¬ 
rally attracted towards it the public attention; 
and, as no answer, except a short and hasty one 
confined to verbal criticisms, has been given to 
it, it has by many been considered as unanswer¬ 
able. 

Having been unaccustomed to give a blind and 
implicit faith to assertions militating against my 
pre-conceived opinions, merely because they 
were confidently pronounced, I thought it my 
duty to bestow considerable attention on these 
animadversions; the result of which was, that of 
Eighteen distinct propositions, dogmatically laid 
down by the Critic, every one is either positively 
false, or is such a gross misrepresentation of the 
truth, as in nowise to authorize the conclusion 
attempted to be drawn from it. Such being my 
conviction, and conceiving that such might be 
the conviction of others, I entertained a hope 
that some person, more especially qualified by 
his station and his studies, would have con¬ 
descended to confute such hardy assertions, and 
assist the judgment of his less-informed brethren 
on points of such magnitude and importance. It 
is merely because no such person has thought 
proper to engage in such an undertaking, that I 
have presumed to enter upon it. I will do so 
without further preface, and will leave the mat- 


\ 


3 

ters at issue between the Critic and myself to 
the fair judgment of the reader. i:> 

The following are the grounds, on which the 
Critic rests his cause: 

1.—“ Translations were made when a dialect 
“ of the Hebrew language was vernacular, which 
44 have been carefully handed down for our 
44 use.”* 

' 2.— 44 The Septuagint version was made at a 
44 time, when the language of the Bible had 
44 scarcely ceased to be vernacular.” J 

3. — 44 Although the Jews, who returned from 
44 the captivity, used a mixture of the Hebrew 
44 and Chaldee, yet it is probable, that some so- 
44 cieties of them, who escaped the general cap- 
44 tivity by flying into neighbouring countries, 
44 still spoke the original language, quite, or 
44 nearly in its purity. 

4. — 44 If the language was not at that time any 
44 where strictly vernacular, yet it had ceased to 
44 be so only for a short period.”|| 

5. — 44 Many writings in it of various descrip- 

44 tions then existed, no doubt, which have since 

<■ 

44 been wholly lost, not to mention grammars, 
44 dictionaries, and other assistances for inter- 
44 pretation, remaining from the period when the 
44 language was in use.”§ 

6. — 44 No reasonable doubt can exist, that the 
44 authors of the Septuagint version possessed 

* Quar. Rev. No. 37, p. 253. f Ibid. p, 260. 

" + Ibid. || Ibid. p. 261. 

§ Ibid. 


4 


“ the means of making it most faithful to the 
“ original.” * 

7. —“ We readily allow, indeed, that it is not 
“a perfect work: as it: is the production of 
“ human beings, it contains errors and imper- 
“ fections: as it has been preserved by human 
“ means, it has suffered occasionally by negli- 
“ genee and mistakes of transcribers.” J 

8. —“ There is not a semblance of argument to 
“ excite the least suspicion, that the version now 
“ called the Septuagint is materially different 
“ from that which has always borne this name.” J 

9. —“ We speak the concurring sentiments of 
“ all learned men, when we affirm that, taken as 
“ a whole, it has come down to us in a state of 
“ great purity and perfection.” || 

10. —“ We have the highest possible authority 
“ for deeming it to convey, in the main, a faithful 
“ record of the true sense of the Hebrew Scrip- 
“ tures.”§ 

11. —“ It was generally received by the Jews 
“ from the first.” 

12. It was quoted by many early writers.”** 

13. —“ It is proved by the concurring opinions 
“ of all antiquity.”tf 

14. —“ It was quoted by our Saviour and the 
“ inspired writers of the New Testament.” 

15. —“ The Greek translations by Aquila, Sym- 
machus and Theodotion, having been made, 

* Quar. Rev. No. 37, p. 261. t Ibid. 

t Ibid. || Ibid. § Ibid. Ibid. 

** Ibid. ff Ibid. %% Ibid. 



“ more or less, with advantages for the right in- 
“ terpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures, far 
“ greater than any modern translator possesses 
“ without their aid, are justly entitled to very 
“ great consideration.”* 

. 16.—“ Jerome’s version was not made from 
“ the Greek translations, but from the original 
“ Hebrew/’f 

17. -—“ All the principal English translations 
“ have, beyond question, been made directly from 
“ the Hebrew.”! 

18. —“ Our authorized version was made, not 
“ from any translation ancient or modern, but 
“ directly from the original Hebrew.” || 

From these propositions, as from premises 
not to be controverted, the Critic boldly draws 
his conclusion, that any attempt to make a new 
translation from the original Hebrew, is unne¬ 
cessary and reprehensible. 

Of these, the first point to be considered is the 
Critic’s defence of the Septuagint version of the 
Old Testament, comprized in his first proposi¬ 
tions. This discussion will necessarily lead me 
into a pretty wide field of historical deduction; 
the result of which, I presume to hope, will 
amount to a demonstration, that the errors and 
corruptions of the Septuagint are so manifold 
and so great, as to render it altogether unde¬ 
serving of being considered as a correct and 
faithful version of the Sacred Text. 

* Quar. Rev. No. 37, p. 262. f Ibid. p. 256. 

% Ibid. || Ibid. 


6 


The original authority, on which rests the 
history of the translation of the Old Testament, 
known by the name of the Septuagint, is a book, 
purporting to have been written by one Aristseas; 
of whom no more is known, than that he is sup¬ 
posed to have been a Hellenistic Jew, living at 
Alexandria in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, 
about the year of the world 3727, or 277 years 
before the birth of Christ.* This book is still 
extant. 

The following is a summary of what Aristmas 
says on the subject: 

Demetrius Phalereus, an Athenian residing at 
Alexandria, having been employed by Ptolemy 
Philadelphus to collect books for his library, and 
having heard of the book of the Law of Moses, 
which was preserved at Jerusalem, prevailed on 
the king to send ambassadors to the high priest 
there, with commission to request that a copy 
of it might be sent to him, together with a suffi¬ 
ciency of interpreters, capable of translating it 
into Greek. The persons charged with this 
mission were our author, who states himself to 
have been an officer of the royal guard, and 
Andreas, a nobleman of the court. These per¬ 
sons, being anxious as much as possible to insure 
the success of the business entrusted to them, 
were desirous of removing an impediment, from 
the continuance of which great difficulties were 
likely to arise. They therefore, having secured 
the co-operation of Sosibius of Tarentum, a 

* Usher, An. sub A. M. 3727. 


/ 


7 


powerful noble of the court, represented to the 
king that it would be vain to expect a compli¬ 
ance with his request, so long as any of the 
Jews, who had been taken and brought to Alex¬ 
andria by his father Ptolemy Soter, should re¬ 
main in captivity; they therefore represented, 
as an indispensable preliminary, that all such 
Jews should be forthwith released. To this the 
king gave his immediate assent, and issued a 
decree to that effect; but, as those captives were 
the property of their masters, his majesty found 
himself under the necessity of paying for their 
redemption out of his own royal funds. He ac¬ 
cordingly did this, at the average rate of twenty 
drachmas per head; which, as the number re¬ 
leased was no less than one hundred and ninety- 
eight thousand, amounted to six hundred and 
sixty talents, or, in British money, to something- 
more than two hundred and forty thousand pounds 
sterling. This preliminary having been thus suc¬ 
cessfully accomplished, Aristaeas and Andreas 
proceeded on their mission, bearing with them a 
letter from the king to the high priest, requesting 
an authentic copy of the Hebrew Law, together 
with six persons out of each of the Twelve Tribes 
of Israel, competent to translate that law into 
Greek. They were also charged with sundry 
valuable presents for the use and decorations of 
the Temple, to wit, utensils of gold, valued at 
fifty talents, utensils of silver, valued at seventy 
talents, precious stones, valued at two hundred 
and fifty talents, and one hundred talents in coin; 


3 


amounting together to four hundred and seventy 
talents, or one hundred and sixty thousand 
pounds sterling; which, added to the former 
sum of two hundred and forty thousand pounds 
for the redemption of the captives, makes the 
outfit of this embassy amount to no less than 
four hundred thousand pounds. These presents, 
as it may be imagined, were readily received. 
In return for them, a true copy of the Law was 
given; which, in order to render it more worthy 
of acceptance by so generous a monarch, was 
written in letters of gold; and six elders were 
selected from each tribe of Israel, who were ap¬ 
pointed to accompany it to Alexandria. On their 
arrival in that capital, Ptolemy, in order to ascer¬ 
tain the talents and qualifications of these high- 
priced interpreters, sent for them into his pre¬ 
sence, and examined them, by propounding to 
each in succession a hard and knotty question. 
Having very satisfactorily passed through this 
ordeal, the king ordered them to be conveyed to 
the island of Pharos, where a house was pro¬ 
vided for their reception. But, before he dis¬ 
missed them, he presented to each individual the 
sum of three talents, as an earnest of his future 
bounty on the fulfilment of their undertaking.’ 
These two hundred and sixteen talents were 
equivalent to seventy-six thousand pounds ster¬ 
ling. The seventy-two interpreters, having taken 
possession of their dwelling, commenced their 
task; and, as progressively they conferred and 
agreed upon the several parts of their version, 


9 


Demetrius, who had been appointed to super- 

i * * * * 

intend them, wrote them down. With such 
vigour was their work prosecuted, that at the 
end of seventy-two days it was completed; and 
the whole having been read over and approved 
of in the king’s presence, he dismissed the 
seventy-two interpreters, giving to each three 
rich garments, a golden cup, and two talents of 
gold, equivalent in value to about eight hundred 
thousand pounds sterling. If we add this to 
the former sum of four hundred and seventy 
thousand pounds, we shall find that Ptolemy ex¬ 
pended on the purchase of this single manu¬ 
script considerably more than a million sterling. 

Such is the account of this transaction, be¬ 
queathed to us by Aristaeas. I beg leave to 
postpone the observations which I have to make 
upon it, until I shall have stated what has been 
said respecting it by other ancient writers. 

The first of these, who alludes to the subject, 
is Aristobulus, who flourished about 125 years 
before Christ. He was an Alexandrian Jew, and, 

r * 

what appears to be an odd sort of association, 
a Peripatetic Philosopher. From such an union 
of professions, however, he might have been 
enabled to'acquire information respecting various 
points, connected both with sacred and with 
profane history, particularly with regard to a 
remarkable occurrence, which had not very long 
before his time taken place in his native city. It 
appears however from the fragments of his 

c 


10 


works, preserved by Clemens Alexandrinus,* 
and Eusebius,f that he says no more than that 
“ The Holy Scriptures had been for the most 
“ part translated into the Greek tongue, before 
“ the period of the Persian empire, or of Alex- 
“ ander the Great; but that a more perfect trans- 
“ lation was made of the whole in the reign of 
“ Ptolemy Philadelphus, under the superintend- 
“ ance of Demetrius Phalareus.” 

The next writer who notices this circumstance 
is Philo, a Jew of Alexandria, who was contem¬ 
porary with our Saviour. He repeats all the 
principal points detailed by Aristaeas, but adds 
several of which that writer makes no mention. 
He says,! that the seventy-two elders agreed so 
exactly in their interpretations, that they did not 
vary in a single word; whence he infers, that 
they must have been prophetically inspired. 

Josephus, who wrote about the end of the first 
century of the Christian aera, follows the account 
given by Aristaeas, varying from it however in 
one particular; he stating the sum paid for the 
redemption of the Jewish captives to have been 
at the rate of one hundred and twenty drachmas 
per head, and the sum total only four hundred 
and sixty talents. || 

Eusebius, who lived about the end of the 

- - , ' f > y ‘ 1 .. . , * 0 . , 

* Clem. Alex. Strom, lib. 1. > * 

r • • ■ •' 

f Euseb. Can. Chron. p. 187. Prep. Evan. 1. 7, c. 13; 1. 8, 
c. 9 ; 1. 13, c. 12. J Philo de Vita Mosis, 1. 2. 

I! Jos. Antiq. 1. 12, c. 2. * 


11 


third century, copies what had been said by 
Aristseas.* 

Justin Martyr, who lived about the middle of 
the second century, varies considerably from the 
foregoing authors. He says,f Ptolemy’s appli¬ 
cation was made to King Herod, who sent him 
the sacred books; but, as they proved to be 
totally unintelligible to the Egyptians, Ptolemy 
made a second application for seventy inter¬ 
preters, for the accommodation of whom he 
erected, in the island of Pharos, seventy small 
houses, or cells, in which they were separately 
confined. They however agreed so exactly, 
not only in the sense, but in the words of their 
several translations, that Ptolemy, inferring that 
such a miraculous concordance must have pro¬ 
ceeded from heavenly inspiration, loaded the 
interpreters with honours and rewards, and con¬ 
sidered as divine the work which he deposited 
in his library. 

These latter particulars are also narrated by 
Hilarius, who lived about the middle of the 
second century by his contemporary Cy- 
rillus; || by Ireneus, who lived at the end of the 
second century, § and by Augustin, who flou¬ 
rished at the close of the sixth. 

Epiphanius, however, who lived about the end 
of the fourth century, gives an account, which 
considerably varies from those already detailed. 

* Prep. Evan. 1. 8, c. 2. f Apol. Sec. Cohort, ad gent. p. 14. 

J Hillar. in Ps. 2. || Cyr. Catech. 4, p. 37. 

$ Adv. Her. 1. 3, c. 15. % De Civit. Dei, 1. 18, c. 53. 


12 


This variation respects not only the mode in 
which the translation was made by the seventy- 
two interpreters, but the number of copies sent 
from Jerusalem and their contents. Aristaeas 
says there was one copy, containing the Law. 
Epiphanius asserts, that there were thirty-six 
copies, containing twenty-seven Canonical books, 
and twenty-two Apochryphal. He moreover says, 
the interpreters were shut up by pairs in thirty- 
six cells, where each pair set to work on a sepa¬ 
rate book. As each book was finished, it was 
sent round to all the other cells, so as to undergo 
thirty-five separate revisals, after which, of 
course, the work was held to be perfect.* 

Such is all the evidence in existence, respect¬ 
ing the origin of this celebrated performance. 
I now proceed to enquire to what degree of 
credit it is entitled ; and, as that is a point of no 
inconsiderable importance on the present occa¬ 
sion, I trust I shall be forgiven, if I discuss it 
with a greater degree of minuteness than hitherto 
has been bestowed upon it. 

We have no authority, which can assist us in 
pronouncing who Aristseas was, or whether he 
wrote the book which bears his name, or whe¬ 
ther such person ever existed, save that of 
Aristseas himself. The first writer, who notices 
him or his story, is Philo, who wrote three 
hundred years after him. This alone is sufficient 
to raise a very considerable doubt as to the au¬ 
thenticity of the narrative; for it cannot rea- 
, * De Pond, et Mens. p. 161. 

II 


13 


sonably be supposed, that, during this long period, 
no mention should have been made, by any 
author, of a circumstance so singular in itself, so 
interesting both to Jew and to Gentile, so replete 
with marvellous incidents, and necessarily so 
much an object of general notoriety, from the 
conspicuous theatre on which it was acted, and 
the exalted personages who figured in the drama. 
Not the slightest notice however was taken, not 
the slightest allusion was made to it, during 
three hundred years, and then comes forward 
Philo, not simply as a transcriber, but as the 
fabricator of a new and no less wonderful cir¬ 
cumstance, so glaringly impossible, that not even 
king Ptolemy himself, depending as he might on 
the ability of his interpreters, could have be¬ 
lieved it. 

The story, however, such as it was, continued 
to rest on these two authorities for nearly a cen¬ 
tury more, when it was repeated by the Jewish 
historian Josephus, though with an observable 
difference, for which he does not account, in his 
calculation of the number of captives, and of the 
sum paid for their ransom. It is not worth en¬ 
quiring which of them is right. 

The next authority, in point of time, is Justin 
Martyr, who wrote upwards of four hundred 
years after Aristseas, and about fifty years after 
Josephus. During this interval, the story appears 
to have undergone some remarkable transforma¬ 
tions. According to him, Ptolemy’s application 
was not made to the High Priest, but to King 


14 


Herod. Now, as according to all history, sacred 
and profane, King Herod was contemporary with 
Jesus Christ, it follows that this negotiation took 
place between Ptolemy and him, two hundred 
and fifty years before the latter mounted the 
throne; a circumstance no less marvellous than 
the rest of the account given by Aristeeas. Should 
any advocate stand forward in support of King 
Herod’s title to this distinction, he will expe¬ 
rience some difficulty in proving the application 
to have been made by Ptolemy Philadelphus ; 
for the same histories will concur in shewing 
him, that, at the time when King Herod reigned 
in Judaea, the whole race of the Ptolemies was 
utterly extinct, and that Egypt itself was no 
longer a kingdom. 

If more were wanting to discredit Justin 
Martyr’s account of this matter, it might be 
shewn that, from the nature of the Jewish reli¬ 
gion and government, nothing could be less cal¬ 
culated to produce the effect which Ptolemy had 
in view, than an application to the temporal 
governor of Judaea; who, as we learn from indis¬ 
putable authority, so far from interfering with 
the national law or religion, most scrupulously 
on all occasions abstained from meddling with 
either, and therefore was the most improper per¬ 
son, to whom an application of this nature could 
have been made. 

So far the story, instead of being improved by 
age, is. rendered less credible. But we have not 
quite done with Justin Martyr. Aristseas, it will 


15 


be remembered, expressly says that one house 
was provided for the reception of seventy-two 
interpreters. Justin, as expressly, reduces the 
number of interpreters to seventy, and increases 
the number of houses to seventy, so that each 
interpreter was confined by himself, without 
any means of communicating with his fellow- 
labourers. Were this a solitary fact, it would 
be of small importance, farther than to show how 
little consistency there is between the two ac¬ 
counts; but it derives great importance from 
its being used as the foundation of a miracle: 
for we are assured that these seventy persons 
performed their task, which was of immense 
magnitude, without any concert or communi¬ 
cation, and not only without a disagreement 
in the sense or construction of any passage, but 
without the difference of a single word. No 
wonder Ptolemy attributed this to heavenly in¬ 
spiration ! The most surprising part of the matter 
is, that it does not appear to have had so much 
effect upon either his faith or his practice, as 
such a miracle ought to have had; for, if history 
may be depended upon, he lived and died as 
completely a heathen, as if it had not been 
wrought before his eyes. 

This new edition of the narrative, however, 
appears to have become the popular one; and 
Aristaeas seems to have been treated somewhat 
harshly by succeeding writers, who, unmindful 
of the obligation they were under to him as its 
original fabricator, gave themselves up implicitly 


16 


\ 


to one, who, four hundred years after him, merely 
added a new story to the edifice which he had 
erected. Not that there is an entire unanimity 
among the subsequent narrators of this remark¬ 
able transaction. The majority of them, indeed, 
as we have seen in the cases of Hilarius, Cy- 
rillus, Ireneus, and Augustin, decidedly took 
part with Justin Martyr, while Eusebius, as ex¬ 
pressly, supported the credit of Aristaeas. Epi- 
phanius, however, who lived about seven hundred 
years after the latter, took a middle part in the 
controversy; agreeing with Aristaeas in his ac¬ 
count of Ptolemy's embassy to the High Priest; 
and with Justin Martyr in other particulars, 
except as to the number of cells and the allow¬ 
ance of two interpreters to each. So far he 
treads in the paths trodden before him; but, as 
soon as he had fairly lodged his thirty-six pairs 
of interpreters, he proceeds, on his own autho¬ 
rity, to give a detailed account of the manner in 
which each pair performed its allotted task, 
namely, the translation in the first instance of a 
separate book, and the revision of the whole 
work. Unfortunately, however, this mode of 
doing the business corresponds neither with the 
number of books of which the Septuagint ac¬ 
tually consists, nor with that of the books parti¬ 
cularly enumerated by himself in the passage 
before us. The Septuagint contains thirty-nine 
Canonical, and thirteen Apochryphal books,^ 
amounting in the whole to fifty-two. Epipha- " 
nius states, that, of the books sent to Alexandria, 


17 


twenty-seven only were Canonical, which, out of 
compliment to the number of letters contained in 
the Hebrew alphabet, were reduced to twenty - 
two, together with the Psalter, the Lamentations 
of Jeremiah, and the Epistle of Baruch, and 
twenty-two Apochryphal books. Now here are 
two positive matters of fact, which it is utterly 
impossible in any manner to reconcile. But, in 
addition to this incongruity, an insuperable diffi¬ 
culty still remains as to the apportionment of the 
books, in whichever way their numbers may be 
calculated, among the thirty-six pairs of inter¬ 
preters. Epiphanius tells us, that to each pair 
was allotted one book. This, according to the 
existing Septuagint, would not go farther than 
the Prophet Zephaniah; and the difficulty will 
not be diminished, if we credit the account given 
by Epiphanius, which (not including his twenty- 
two Apochryphal books, of wffiich more here¬ 
after) would leave six pairs of his interpreters 
totally unemployed. 

An embarrassment, by no means inferior, will 
arise from Epiphanius’s account of the manner 
in which the execution of their task was per¬ 
formed. We are told by Aristseas, that the 
whole work was completed in the space of 
seventy-two days; and in this assertion every 
one of the authors, whom I have had occasion to 
quote, unanimously agrees. Epiphanius, not 
dissenting from this, assures us that, as each 
book was finished, it was sent round to all the 
other cells, so as to undergo thirty-five separate 


i) 


18 


revisals. Numbers are obstinate things, and it 
is difficult to argue against them, especially 
when, as in the present instance, they are ex¬ 
plicit. According to Epiphanius’s own state¬ 
ment, here are fifty-two books to be translated, 
thirty-six sets of persons to translate and sepa¬ 
rately revise each of them, and seventy-two days 
for performing the work. As this translation is 
represented to have been one on which very 
particular pains were bestowed, insomuch that 
it appeared, on a minute revisal, that not a single 
error was to be found in it from beginning to 
end, it must be admitted that the interpreters 
could not have been hurried, but must have had 
.a due portion of time allowed them for the ful¬ 
filment of a task, so delicate and so difficult in 
itself, yet ultimately brought to such a wonderful 
degree of perfection as we are assured it has 
been. Seventy-two days therefore were not 
more than sufficient for doing all this, if no more 
than a simple translation had been required; but, 
besides this, each pair had to revise separately 
the version of every other pair, which seems to 

r - • 

reduce the matter to an utter impossibility. 

But it may perhaps be said that, though we 
cannot depend on the accuracy of this account, 
greater reliance may be had on that given by 
Aristaeas, whose manner of telling the story is 
very different. Let us therefore refer to what 
he tells us on the subject. According to his 
edition of the story, it becomes extremely sim¬ 
plified ; and we have only to ascertain in what 


19 


manner his phalanx of interpreters set about 
the business—whether they worked in a mass— 
or whether each of them took his separate 
portion. 

Let us consider it on the first supposition, that 
they operated together. In a translation of a work, 
where not only the precise sense and meaning of 
every passage must be duly appreciated, but every 
root, every tense, every shadow of an idiom must 
be accurately weighed and decided upon, what 
may be the time, which may reasonably be 
allowed to seventy-two persons to finish it ? Ac¬ 
cording to Aristseas, they must have translated 
with a velocity altogether incredible; for not only 
the foul copy of this immense work must have 
been finished, not only Demetrius must have 
made a fair transcript of all their brouillons, 
which, considering the length of the task, was no 
trifling labour for one scribe, but, after he had 
got through it, it was indispensably necessary 
that the whole should undergo a second minute 
revision, lest in his transcript an error should 
have occurred in any of those essential particu¬ 
lars before mentioned; since, had one been suf¬ 
fered to remain, there was an end of that imma¬ 
culate purity, so forcibly predicated of this 
version. 

Should this ground not be found tenable, let 
us try the other, and inquire what could be done 
by each of the seventy-two interpreters taking 
his separate portion of the work. Here we are 
not only presented with a repetition of all the 



20 


embarrassments contained in the account given 
by Epiphanius, but we have them in a more 
than double proportion. Instead of the work 
being divided into thirty-six portions, it must have 
been divided into seventy-two, each of them to 
be translated by one interpreter, and afterwards 
to be separately revised, collated, and corrected 
by each of his seventy-one fellow labourers, after 
which operations it was of necessity to be fairly 
written out for the use of the royal library, and 
again carefully collated, revised, and corrected 
before it could be deposited there, and the whole 
of this to be completed within the space of 
seventy-two days!—Surely such gross and clumsy 
fictions are undeserving of farther attention, and 
are fit only to be classed with those other absurd 
and monstrous romances, fabricated by the Hel¬ 
lenistic Jews of those times, and successfully 
imitated by the monkish legendary writers of a 
later period. 

Before, however, I quit this part of my subject, 
I must say a few words respecting the quantum 
of translatable matter, said to have been executed 
by those interpreters. And here no less discord¬ 
ance will be found, than is discoverable in the 
other circumstances of the narrative. 

If we believe Aristseas, it will follow that no 
more than the “ Law of Moses,” or the first five 
books of the Old Testament, were translated by 
his interpreters. This would indeed have dimi¬ 
nished the labour of the persons employed; but, 
in such case, an awkward question would arise 


21 


as to the persons by whom, and the time when 
the remainder of the Septuagint was translated. 
If Aristaeas be right, the Septuagint, compre¬ 
hending as it does the whole of the Old Testa¬ 
ment, is a work “ incerti auctoris,” and there¬ 
fore spurious; if he be wrong, the whole credit 
of his narrative, falsified as it will be in so im¬ 
portant a particular, must fall to the ground. 

But what says Epiphanius? He is extremely 
precise and definite with respect to the number 
of Canonical and Apochryphal books which he 
affirms to have been translated, stating the 
former, including the Epistle of Baruch, at thirty, 
and the latter at twenty-two. Now compare 
this with the Septuagint / itself, which actually 
contains thirtv-nine Canonical books, in which 
number Baruch is not to be found, and no more 
than thirteen Apochryphal books, among which 
Baruch is included. This is a discrepancy, which 
wiil go far towards destroying the testimony of 
the reverend Bishop of Salamis, who lived seven 
hundred years after the Septuagint is said to 
have been published, and who was writing ex¬ 
pressly on the subject of the Bible; but what 
will be said, if we convict him of a still graver 
mistake, if we prove him to have been so igno¬ 
rant of the matter of which he undertook to 
treat, as not to have known in what language the 
books, which he affirms to have been translated 
by his interpreters into Greek, were written? 
He tells us, that the task, on which they were 
employed, was the translation into Greek of 


22 


thirty Canonical, and twenty-two Apochryphal 
books; an assertion not only untrue, but alto¬ 
gether impossible; inasmuch as it is certain 
that none of the Apochryphal books were written 
in Hebrew, but that all of them were originally 
written in Greek by Hellenistic Jews. 

Having thus, as I trust successfully, disposed 
of this part of the subject, I will proceed to the 
discussion of some collateral facts intimately 
connected with it, contained in the narratives on 
the examination of which we have been em^ 

Among these, as throwing an air of improbable 
romance over the whole transaction, may be 
classed the enormous sum given by Ptolemy for 
a volume, the doctrines contained in which 
could be to him of no estimation or value, and of 
which many authentic copies must already have 
been procurable at a low rate; and the assertion 
that the copy of the Law sent to Alexandria was 
written in letters of gold, which is hardly cre¬ 
dible, as it is opposed by an ancient and well- 
known Constitution of the Jews, by which it was 
ordained, that the Law should never be written 
otherwise than with ink only. These, however, 
are matters of subaltern importance, compared 
with some to which I now request the attention 
of the reader. 

The principal actor in this transaction is stated 
to have been Demetrius Phalareus. We are 
assured that he was the, king’s librarian; that 
the embassy to Jerusalem was undertaken on his 



t. 


23 

suggestion; that the interpreters were specially 
committed to his charge; that he was shut up 
with them in the island of Pharos ; that he was 
the scribe, who made out the fair copy of their 
labours; that, in a word, he was so identified 
with every circumstance of the story, that the 
one cannot exist without the other, and that, 
consequently, if either of them be proved to be 
false, the credit of the whole must fall to the 
ground. Now it is clearly demonstrable, that 
not one of the above circumstances, either was, 
or could have been true. We happen to be in 
possession of a life of Demetrius Phalareus, 
written by Diogenes Laertius, an author whose 
credit ranks at least as high as that of Aristeeas, 
or any of his followers. From this it appears 
that Demetrius Phalareus was no inconsiderable 
man, having held during many years the high 
situation of Prince at Athens, and as such go¬ 
verned the state with absolute authority. Having 
been thence expelled by the influence of Deme¬ 
trius, the son of Antigonus, he took refuge with 
Cassander; after whose decease he retired to 
Egypt, where, being favourably received by 
Ptolemy Soter, he became his chief counsellor, or 
prime minister. That, while he held this digni¬ 
fied situation, he might have advised the king to 
found the library at Alexandria, is by no means 
improbable, as he was reputed to be one of the 
most eminent literary characters of the age in 
which he flourished; and it is no less likely that 
he contributed his efforts towards its establish- 


24 


ment. But, of all suppositions, the one least to 
be presumed is, that a person so circumstanced 
should have taken on himself an employment, so 
derogatory from his rank, and so incompatible 
with his other important engagements. This, 
however, is a question which need not now be 
agitated, as we have positive authority for saying, 
that the office of librarian, both to Ptolemy Soter 
and to Ptolemy Philadelphus, his son and succes¬ 
sor, was held by Zenodotus of Ephesus.* Should 
any doubt respecting the matter still remain, it 
must vanish when the following material event in 
the history of Demetrius Phalareus shall be told. 
Ptolemy Soter, being married to Euridice, by 
whom he had several sons, married, in her life¬ 
time, one of her attendants named Berenice, by 
whom he had a son, Ptolemy Philadelphus. As 
he advanced in years, this woman gained such 
an ascendancy over him, that she prevailed on 
him to disinherit the children of Euridice, and to 
nominate her own son as his successor. Deme¬ 
trius Phalareus, being consulted by the king on 
this business, acted as became a faithful coun¬ 
sellor, by endeavouring to dissuade him from a 
compliance with such an unjust request. Though 
his attempt to do this proved unsuccessful, it so 
greatly irritated Berenice and her son, that 
when, on the demise of Ptolemy Soter, the latter 
mounted the throne, he threw Demetrius Phala¬ 
reus into a fortress in a remote part of the king- 

) * * f* *. . 

* Suidas in Zwo$or». 


25 


dom, where he remained a close prisoner till his 
death, which was occasioned by the bite of an 
asp, in or about the year 284 B. C., or seven 
years before the date assigned by Aristseas for 
the mission to Jerusalem. 

There is another circumstance, still more im- 

**■ 

portant than this, on which I am apprehensive I 
shall have occasion to trespass considerably on 
the patience of the reader; as it necessarily in¬ 
volves a variety of matter, all however directly 
bearing towards the establishment of my propo¬ 
sition, and demonstrating the falsehood of those, 
so hardily advanced by the writer whom I have 
undertaken to refute. Should that patience be 
afforded to me, I presume to hope that I may 
have it in my power to adduce some facts and 
arguments, of which it is pretty clear that the 
Quarterly Critic could not have been apprized, 
and which will probably leave little or no doubt 
on the subject. 

The circumstance to which I allude is, that 
the High Priest complied with Ptolemy’s request, 
by sending him Six Elders out of each of the 
Twelve tribes of Israel, competent to translate 
the Old Testament out of the Hebrew into the 
Greek language. 

It appears evident, for several reasons, that 
such a compliance on the part of the High Priest 
was impossible. 

Nothing can be more certain than that, in every 
possible case of translation, two preliminaries 
are indispensably requisite; these are, a critical 

E 


26 


knowledge of the language in which the original 
is composed, and a no less critical knowledge of 
the language into which it is to be translated. 
Our first object therefore will be to ascertain the 
probability of there having been, in the time 
of Ptolemy Philadelphus, seventy-two persons 
throughout Judaea so qualified. 

The city of Jerusalem was first taken, and the 
kingdom was conquered, by Nebuchadnezzar, in 
the year 606 B. C. Great numbers of the people 
were captived and sent to Babylon, and among 
these were specially included many of the chil¬ 
dren of the royal family and of the nobility.* 

In the year 598 B. C., in the reign of Jehoiakin, 
Jerusalem, having revolted, was again besieged 
and taken by Nebuchadnezzar, who transported 
to Babylon the king, the royal family, the nobi¬ 
lity, the men of eminence in war, arts and 
sciences, and all other persons of note or distinc¬ 
tion, to the amount of considerably more than 
twenty thousand; leaving none to cultivate the 
land but the lowest and most ignorant of the 
people, over whom he appointed Zedekiah to 
reign as his vassal.')' 

In the eleventh year after this transaction, ann. 
588 B. C., this vassal king having revolted^ 
Jerusalem was a third time besieged and taken 
by Nebuchadnezzar. The consequences of this 
were much more serious and decisive than those 
of the preceding sieges. All the king’s sons and 

# Dan. i. 2.—2 Chron. xxxvi. 6.~-2 Kings, xxiv. 1. 
f 2 Kings, xxiv. 10.—Jerem. lii. 28. : c 


27 


/ 

all his princes were slain before his face; he 
himself, after being deprived of his sight, was 
sent prisoner to Babylon: the temple and city 
were burnt and razed to the ground, and the 
high priest, the second priest, and seventy others 
of the greatest eminence, were put to death; so 
that no persons, save those of the most abject 
sort, were left to till the land.* 

From these proscriptions, however, some Jews 
of rank had escaped into the countries adjacent. 
These, after the third retreat of Nebuchadnezzar, 
returning into Judaea, slew the governor whom 
he had appointed, with a view of gaining an in¬ 
dependent establishment in the country; but, 
finding themselves unable to fulfil this expecta¬ 
tion, they, together with all those who had asso¬ 
ciated with them, and all those who had been 
left with the Babylonish governor, men, women, 
and children, quitted Judaea, and, repairing to 
Egypt, established themselves there.j~ 

There is not, perhaps, in the history of the 
world, to be found an instance of so complete a 
subversion, not only of a kingdom, but of an en¬ 
tire nation, as is presented to us by these short 
statements of the severities exercised on the 
Jews on this memorable occasion. It involved 
all orders and conditions of society: the monarch, 
his family, the princes, the nobility, the priest¬ 
hood, every one distinguished for ability civil or 
military, all were swept away, and none were 

* 2 Kings, xxv. 4.-2 Chron. xxxvi. 17.—Jerem. xxxix. 2; 
lii, 6 . ; f Jerem. xl. 7 —42. r . 


28 


left but the abject and the ignorant, the mere 
serfs and villeins attached to the soil under the 
coercion of a foreign taskmaster. The temple 
was burnt and razed to the ground; all the sa¬ 
cred utensils were carried off by the unsparing 
conqueror: not a vestige remained of religion, 
law, government or learning; and in this de¬ 
plorable state did Judaea remain for more than 
half a century. The consequences were obvious, 
and must have been inevitable. It requires no 
argument to prove the progressive degradation 
of an ignorant and oppressed populace, con¬ 
demned to labour like the beasts of the field, 
destitute of the means of instruction, and from 
whose minds the faint recollections of the small 
and imperfect knowledge, which they once might 
have possessed, must speedily have been obli¬ 
terated ; and it is no less evident, that one of the 
most certain as well as immediate effects of this 
general degradation must have been the corrup¬ 
tion of the language of the country, if not its total 
annihilation: for it appears, from the foregoing 
details, that not only all those of eminence and 
learning had been carried away, but that even 
the refuse, which had been left, had in a body 
migrated into Egypt, leaving behind them no 
one, by whom the national language, whatever 
its state might have been, could have been 
spoken. At any rate, supposing the consequence 
of these violent proceedings not to have gone so 
i f ar as a total extinction of the vernacular tongue 
(the only exception which can possibly be made). 


29 


nothing can be more evident than the deteriora¬ 
tion of a language, spoken (if indeed it were 
spoken) for a length of time by a people under 
such circumstances. 

Let us now endeavour to discover, what effect 
was produced on the language of those who were 
conveyed as captives into Chaldea. 

Few points are less disputable than that, when¬ 
ever two nations become as it were amalgamated, 
there must be some common medium, by which 
their thoughts may be reciprocally communi¬ 
cated. This is more particularly certain, when 
one nation is entirely subjected to the other, 
when the only relations subsisting between them 
are those of master and slave, and where their 
several languages are so dissimilar, that it be¬ 
comes absolutely necessary for either the con¬ 
querors, or the conquered, immediately to submit 
to the toilsome necessity of acquiring a new one, 
for the purpose of carrying on the ordinary 
duties, and providing for the ordinary necessa¬ 
ries of life. It requires no great penetration to 
discover, on which party this disagreeable neces¬ 
sity would attach. When the power is all on 
one side, no option is left to the other; the will 
of the despot must be obeyed by the slave; and, 
in order to be capable of obeying it, it behoves 
the latter to understand the idiom in which it is 
conveyed. I know of but one instance of similar 
amalgamation between two distinct peoples, that 
of the Lacedemonians and Helotes; and, in their 
case, no doubt can exist, which of the two was 


30 


compelled to submit to the necessity resulting 
from the nature of their connection. Nor can 
it be supposed that, under all the circumstances 
attendant on the spoliation of Judsea, the misera¬ 
ble natives of that country experienced from 
their haughty enslavers, a treatment much milder 
than that inflicted on the hapless Helotes, or 
that the imperious Chaldean exacted a less 
heavy tribute of deference and submission to his 
sovereign mandate, than was required by the 
tyrannical Spartan. This argument would of 
itself, on the mere ground of probability, amount 
almost to an evidence that, during the continu¬ 
ance of the captivity, the Hebrew could not have 
been the vernacular language of the Jews, no 
longer residing together as a community, but 
dispersed over a widely extending territory, and 
under separate and remote task-masters. And, 
proceeding still on the same ground of proba¬ 
bility, it is equally evident that, by a continu¬ 
ance of these circumstances, the evil would 
every day become greater, in the ratio of the 
distance from the first cessation of the usage of 
the Hebrew mode of speech. Had the interval 
of such cessation been short, the effect produced 
by it might perhaps have affected its purity by 
the introduction of colloquial phrases and other 
barbarisms, but the language itself might have 
remained, though in a state of inferior purity 
and elegance. This, however, can hardly apply 
to the case as it really occurred. From the first 
capture of Jerusalem in the year 606 B. C. to 


\ 


31 


the publication by Cyrus of his decree for the 
restoration of the Jews, in the year 536 B. C., a 
period of seventy years elapsed, during which 
two generations of the captives had died. The 
native language of those who returned must 
therefore, with very few exceptions, have been 
the Chaldean; and from this might in a great 
degree be ascertained the extent of critical know¬ 
ledge of the pure Hebrew language, which per¬ 
sons so circumstanced might be supposed to 
possess, had we not the means of resorting to an 
indisputable authority, which will shew beyond 
all doubt their almost entire ignorance in this 
respect. 

The authority to which I allude is that of Ezra 
and Nehemiah, who themselves conducted to 
Jerusalem the restored captives, and from whose 
record of the transaction we learn the following 
particulars. ' 

The total number of those who, availing them¬ 
selves of the permission accorded by Cyrus r 
returned to Judaea, was 51,254, of whom 4,405 
were Priests and Levites. There are no means 
of ascertaining with exactness, how many of 
them retained any knowledge of Hebrew; but 
there is strong reason for believing, that a very 
great majority were unacquainted with any lan¬ 
guage except the Chaldean. This, as has been 
said, must have been the case of nearly all those 
who were born during the continuance of the 
captivity; unless we should suppose, what 
indeed is probable, that the necessity of cele- 


32 


brating the rites of religion had enabled the 
Priests and Levites to retain some knowledge of 
the language in which the sacred books were 
written. How few there were among them, of 
those who had been conveyed to Babylon, is 
apparent from a circumstance, which Ezra tells 
us occurred when the foundation of the new 
temple was laid, in the first year after their 
return; on which occasion “ many of the priests 
“ and Levites, and chief of the Fathers, ancient 
“ men who had seen the first house, wept.”* 
This exception proves the proposition. To have 
retained a lively recollection of an edifice fifty- 
three years after it was destroyed, implies an 
antecedent capacity of estimating its proportions 
and superiority, of which few persons under 
fifteen years of age can be supposed to have 
been possessed; and, if the ordinary chances of 
surviving to the age of sixty-eight be considered, 
it will not be difficult to decide how small must 
have been the number of those, of whom Ezra 
relates this anecdote. But, be their number 
what it might, it would make little against the 
proposition, unless it could be proved, that such 
persons had retained a perfect knowledge, theo¬ 
retical and practical, of the Hebrew language. 

The extreme improbability of such a circum¬ 
stance having been already shewn, let us inquire 
what really was the case j and for tins let ns 
have recourse to the testimony of Nehemiah, who 

' ; ** - *'• ♦ - 

' T ^ „ i . •. . i v . * • «, * . » s L t J J 

* Ezra, iii. 12. 


33 


narrates what passed in his own presence, 
when Ezra publicly read the book of the Law of 
Moses to the people. He informs us, that Ezra, 
standing on a pulpit, opened the book in the 
sight of all the people, “ while the Priests and 
“ Levites caused them to understand the Law; 
“ so that they read the Law distinctly, and gave 
“ the sense, and caused the people to understand 
“ the reading.”* That is, the Law, as received 
from Moses, was read in its original language, 
the Hebrew; but this not being intelligible by 
the people, it was, for their information and in¬ 
struction, translated, passage by passage, into 
the Chaldean tongue, which was become the 
popular national dialect, and which alone was 
understood by them. And, from this period to 
the present time, a similar course has been ob¬ 
served ; the law being first read to the assembly 
in the original Hebrew, and immediately ren¬ 
dered by an interpreter in whatever tongue those 
present might best understand. To this also 
was owing the division of the Holy Scriptures 
into verses, which were established for the sake 
of avoiding confusion; inasmuch as the priest 
would be guided by them as to the extent of the 
passage to be read, as the interpreter would as 
to that of the passage to be translated. And on 
this was founded a rule, that of the Law only 
one verse was to be read and translated at once, 
but that of the Prophets three verses were to 
be read and translated together. 

* Nehem. viii. 4, 5, 8. 

F 


34 


The case might be allowed to rest on this 
evidence; but there are two other circumstances 
illustrative of it, which it may be proper briefly 
to notice. 

The first is, that the ancient Hebrew character 
having, in the course of the captivity, fallen into 
disuse, and that of Chaldea having become the 
only one employed by the Jews, the latter was 
adopted by Ezra in his new transcription of the 
Holy Scriptures, and has ever since been recog¬ 
nized as the character of the Hebrew nation. Of 
this there is not, as in the preceding instances, 
any contemporary evidence; nor indeed can such 
evidence reasonably be required, there being no 
preceding copy in existence: but the whole 
weight of ancient testimony is in its favour, 
and if, of the moderns, the younger Buxtorf has 
written against it, Ludovicus Capellus has on 
the other hand published an equally learned 
treatise in its support. 

The other circumstance is one which, should 
it be admitted, would be a strong corroboration 
of my argument, though, if it be disputed, its 
non-application cannot in any degree affect the 
evidence already brought forward. The Jewish 
people having, with few exceptions, lost all 
knowledge of the Hebrew language, and the 
correct reading of the Holy Scriptures being not 
only a matter of essential importance, but of 
absolute necessity, it is reasonable to suppose 
that, with a view to the insurance of so desirable 
an object, Ezra adopted those marks, or symbols. 


35 


commonly called Points, which are equivalent to 
the vowels used in all modern languages. It 
does not appear that doubts were entertained of 
this till towards the middle of the sixteenth 
century, when it became a matter of controversy, 
in consequence of Elias Levita, a learned Jewish 
grammarian, having undertaken to disprove it. 
He was followed by Ludovicns Capellus, a pro¬ 
fessor at Saumur, and both of them were strongly 
opposed by the. two Buxtorfs. Upon these 
adverse authorities, the question rests. Without 
entering into a discussion of abstruse criticism, 
it will be sufficient to consider briefly the argu¬ 
ments advanced on both sides. 

Levita and Capellus deny the antiquity of the 
Hebrew Points, because 

1. —They were invented, so late as the end of 
the fifth century, by the Masorites of Tiberias : 

2. —No notice of them is taken in the Keri, or 
Cetib, the various readings of the sacred text: 

3. —None of the mysteries of the ancient Cab- 
balists are drawn from the Vowel Points : 

4. —No notice is taken of them in the Mishna, 
or the Gemaras : 

5. —Their names are not Hebrew, but Chal- 
daic: 

6. —They are not alluded to by Philo, Josephus, 
Origen, or Jerome: 

7. —It appears from a comparison of the pre¬ 
sent printed Hebrew Bibles with the Septuagint 
version, the Chaldee Paraphrases, and the ver¬ 
sions of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion and 


36 


Jerome, that all the latter must have construed 
the sacred text in a manner very different from 
what is to be found in the former; from which it 
is to be inferred, that no Pointed Copies existed 
in their time, or that, if they did exist, they were 
not held to be any authority, as otherwise those 
translators would certainly have followed them: 

8.—No Vowel Points ever were, or are now to 
be found in the Copies of the Holy Scriptures 
kept in the Jewish Synagogues. 

On the other hand, their opponents maintain 
the antiquity of these Vowel Points, because 

1. —There is no authority, antecedent to the 
twelfth century, for affirming that they were in¬ 
vented by the Masorites: 

2. —If, by the Masorites, be meant the authors 
of the Massorah, it is evident that these Points 
could not have been invented by them, a consi¬ 
derable part of their criticism turning upon them; 
which could not possibly have happened, had 
they not been previously in use: 

3. —When the Hebrew ceased to be the ver¬ 
nacular language, as was the case on the return 
from the Babylonish captivity, that language 
could not possibly have been taught without the 
Vowel Points. 

These latter arguments appear to be of great 
force. The Masorites, it is well known, were a 
set of men, whose particular duty and employ¬ 
ment was to watch over, and teach the true read¬ 
ings of the Holy Scriptures, and to write out 
copies of them. As the antiquity of their insti- 



37 


tution can be traced up to, or nearly to the time 
of Ezra, it seems reasonable to suppose that their 
institution and the invention of the points were 
synchronous, the object of both having been pre- * 
cisely the same, and there being no existing au¬ 
thority to oppose such a conclusion. Nor is the 
argument, drawn from the impossibility of teach¬ 
ing the Hebrew without the aid of the Points, 
less forcible. It is supported by the analogy of 
all the other Oriental languages, especially those 
of an antiquity at least equal to the time when 
Ezra flourished, such as the Persian, the Arabic, 
and the Syrian, all of which have vowel points. 

But, satisfactory as these reasons may appear, 

I incline to think that Levita and Capellus may 
be equally confuted by a short examination of 
the arguments, advanced by themselves in sup¬ 
port of their hypothesis. 

With respect to their four first propositions, 
as they are simply negative, little need be said, 
further than that they appear to have found it 
convenient for their argument to suppress a cir¬ 
cumstance of no small importance, namely, the 
distinction between the Masoritic and Rabbinical 
schools. The business of the former, as has been 
said, was to watch over and teach the true read¬ 
ing of the Holy Scriptures, and to write out copies 
of them; by the latter the sacred books were in¬ 
terpreted, expounded and criticised: and this 
distinction subsisted, till some time after the 
formation of the Mishna and the Gemaras. As 
these works, though sufficiently voluminous, con- 


38 


tain in general little more than traditions, and 
fanciful expositions of the law, and had no con¬ 
nection with the purity of the text, it is not sur¬ 
prising that no notice should have been taken by 
the Rabbis of a matter so foreign to their pur¬ 
pose, and which, in many instances, would have 
militated against their own forced and visionary 
interpretations. And nearly the same reason 
may be assigned for the silence observed re¬ 
specting the Points by Philo, Josephus, Origen 
and Jerome. The subjects on which they wrote 
did not render any mention of the Points neces¬ 
sary ; and their not having mentioned them is no 
more a proof of their non-existence, than would 
be the omission of any other circumstance un¬ 
connected with the immediate subject of which 
they were treating. It might with equal pro¬ 
priety be affirmed, that pens and ink were not 
used in the seventeenth century, because Sir 
Isaac Newton does not mention his having 
availed himself of their aid when he wrote his 
“ Principia.” 

It does not appear that any additional weight 
can be afforded to the argument on either side, 
by the assertion that the names of the Vowel 
Points are not Hebrew, but Chaldaic. It merely 
proves that the latter was the language used at 
the period when the Points were invented, and 
therefore applies as much to the time of Ezra, as 
to any subsequent time. 

The assertion, that no Vowel Points ever were, 
or are now to be found in the copies of the Holy 


i 


39 


Scriptures kept in the Jewish synagogues, is 
entitled to a greater degree of consideration, as 
it is one of those assertions which, though true 
in itself, reflects but little credit on the learned 
Critics by whom it was made; for “ it palters 
“ with us in a double sense ; it keeps the word 
“ of promise to our ear, and breaks it to our 
“ hope.” It may be completely answered, by a 
reference to the practice in this respect handed 
down from remote antiquity, and to this day 
observed by the Jews. In every synagogue is 
kept a roll of the Holy Scriptures, in which the 
sacred text is fairly written without Points, and 
from this the appointed portions are read to the 
people. But even the Priests, whose duty it is 
to do this, experienced and practised as they 
may be, are so well aware of the difficulty and 
hazard attending it, that they make it an invari¬ 
able rule, on the preceding day, to rehearse their 
prescribed passages, carefully collating them s 
word by word with the printed Pointed Bible; 
that the pure text may be engraven in their 
memories, so that no discordance may appear be¬ 
tween what they deliver, and what the congre¬ 
gation read in the printed Pointed Bibles which 
they hold in their hands. As this is a fact which 
could not have been unknown to these eminent 
scholars, it affords an evidence of their candour, 
which will hardly recommend them as authorities 
much to be relied on. When controversial writers 
have recourse to such disingenuous artifices, we 
may be tempted to pass on them the judgment 


40 


given by our great bard in the passage just 
quoted, “ Then be these juggling fiends no more 
“ believed!” 

The last remaining assertion made by Levita 
and Capellus, and by far the most important of 
the whole, is that which I have marked as the 
Seventh. The reader will perceive that it resolves 
itself into two propositions. 

The first contains a direct acknowledgement, 
that there exists a material discrepancy between 
the Pointed Hebrew Bibles and the Septuagint 
version, the Chaldee paraphrases, and the ver¬ 
sions of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion and Je¬ 
rome. This is, indeed, a most important ad¬ 
mission, which completely overturns the propo¬ 
sitions of our Quarterly Critic respecting the 
correctness and purity of those versions, and as 
expressly confirms the opinion of those, who ad¬ 
vocate the necessity of a new translation. If 
such a difference exists, how is it to be accounted 
for ? Will any one be hardy enough to deny the 
integrity of the Sacred Text? Unless that be not 
only denied but clearly disproved, it follows that 
this admitted discordance originated with the 
translators; a matter which may be easily and 
satifactorily proved, and indeed to a greater 
extent than could have been known to either 
Levita or Capellus, as in their time our own re¬ 
ceived version had not made its appearance. 
This is one of the facts of which, as I have before 
ventured to hint, our Critic must have been un¬ 
apprized, when he so confidently declared that 


41 


“ we have the highest possible authority for 
“ deeming the Septuagint version to convey a 
“ faithful record of the true sense of the Hebrew 
“ Scriptures.”* He must get out of this diffi- 
culty as he can. I shall merely observe, that, as 
the reputation of Levita and Capellus for acumen 
and Hebrew erudition stands high, it will be 
advisable for him to be quite sure of his ground, 
before he ventures to dispute their authority; 
and yet he must dispute it, and subvert it too, 
before he can escape from the dilemma in which 
it has placed him. 

The next point to be considered is, the infer¬ 
ence drawn by Levita and Capellus from this 
discordance between the original text and the 
versions of it—namely, that, at the times when 
such versions were made, no pointed copies 
existed ; or that, if they did exist, they were not 
held to be of any authority : as otherwise the 
translators would certainly have followed them. 
With all due respect to these critics and to their 
celebrity as grammarians, we may venture to 
pronounce them to have been very slender logi¬ 
cians, when they hazarded such a conclusion. It 
surely ought to have occurred to them, as it 
must do to every one else, that a very different 
inference may be drawn; that it is much more 
probable that the translators were ignorant and 
insufficient, than that alterations should have 
been made in the Sacred Text; a proposition 

r / f f , 

J .) , 

**>" . . ~ • 

* Quar. Rev. No. 37, p. 261. ; 

a 


J 


42 

which probably no one will be sufficiently con¬ 
fident to advance. There is indeed strong in¬ 
ternal evidence in these different versions, to 
prove that they cannot be considered as con¬ 
veying accurately the meaning of the original 
text. If they did, how could there exist among 
themselves such numerous discordances as pre¬ 
vail throughout them, not only as to tenses, 
idioms, and other grammatical niceties, but as to 
doctrinal and moral points, vitally connected 
with every thing valuable in this life and in that 
to come? Now, as the accuracy of a version can 
be ascertained in no other way than by a col¬ 
lation with the original from which it is made, 
and as we discover every one of these versions 
materially varying, not only from the original, 
but from each other, the most favourable con¬ 
struction that can be put on such discrepancy is, 
that only one can be right, while the most pro¬ 
bable one is, that all of them are wrong. This, 
I admit, is a grave charge, which, ought to be 
substantiated by evidence demonstrative of its 
truth. That, before I conclude, I shall be able 
to bring forward some very convincing evidence 
of that sort, I am presumptuous enough to hope; 
and, if of such evidence the result should be a 
conviction of its truth, the immediate conse¬ 
quence ought to be a rectification of the errors, 
by which the revelations from heaven have been 
misrepresented, and which have afforded to the 
enemies of our holy faith the only weapons by 
which it can be assailed. 




43 


As I trust it has been shewn that the Jews 
did not possess such a critical knowledge of 
Hebrew, as might have enabled them to trans¬ 
late correctly from that language, I will enlarge 
no farther on that part of the subject. My oppo¬ 
nent may dispute what I have said, and, if he 
can, disprove it; but, if he should succeed in 
such an attempt, he will gain but little advan¬ 
tage, unless he shall be able to shew that the 
Jews, with whatever amount of Hebrew learning 
he may think proper to endow them, possessed 
at the same time such a critical knowledge of 
Greek, as might have qualified them to make 
a correct translation into that language. Unless 
he can do this, he will do nothing; and any thing 
like this he probably will find it very difficult to 
do, as nothing can be more certain than that not 
only the language acquired by the Jews during 
their captivity was the Chaldaic, but that it 
was altogether impossible for them to have learnt 
Greek, that language not having been used by 
the Babylonians while they resided among them. 
It may perhaps be said, that, though this obser¬ 
vation may apply to the state in which they 
stood on their return to Jerusalem, a consi¬ 
derable alteration in this respect might have 
taken place during the interval of 259 years, 
which elapsed between that event and the period 
fixed on by Aristaeas for Ptolemy’s application 
for the interpreters; inasmuch as, in conse¬ 
quence of the inroads and settlements of the 
Greeks in Palestine, a knowledge of their lan- 


44 


guage must have been generally diffused. On 
the other hand, it must be admitted that, in a 
case like this, the operation of two centuries 
and a half would have been two-fold; that, if it 
afforded to the Jews the means of learning 
Greek, it proportionably decreased the likelihood 
of their keeping alive even that scintilla of 
Hebrew, which they might have brought back 
with them from Babylon. Be this however as 
it may, it will prove nothing, unless it can be shewn 
that they actually did possess a perfect and 
critical knowledge of both languages, without 
which it was altogether impossible for them to 
make a translation from the one into the other; 
of which there is no evidence, and against which 
the probability is manifest. 

Let us now proceed to consider the only re¬ 
maining point in Aristaeas’s narrative, namely, 
the selection of Six Interpreters out of each of 
the Twelve Tribes of Irael. 

It will hardly be disputed that, in every ima¬ 
ginable case of selection, there must be some 
fund or aggregate, from which the selection may 
be made. Our first inquiry must therefore be, 
whether there were in the year 277 B. C. Twelve 
Tribes of Israel, out of which these interpreters 
could have been taken. 

In order to ascertain this, it will be necessary 
to recur to the original schism, which took place 
among the Twelve Tribes of Israel in the reign 
of Rehoboam, and in the vear 975 B. C. The 
account of this memorable event is contained in 


45 


the Twelfth Chapter of the First Book of Kings; 
in which we find that Ten Tribes, having revolted 
against Rehoboam, formed themselves into a 
distinct monarchy under the title of the Kingdom 
of Israel, while the remaining Two Tribes of 
Judah and Benjamin, still adhering to Rehoboam, 
constituted what was termed the Kingdom of 
Judah. This schism was not only in point of fact 
conclusive and final, for the two kingdoms ever 
after remained distinct and separate, but it ap¬ 
pears that such a perpetual disunion was in the 
contemplation of the revolters at the moment 
when the separation took place, from their having 
adopted a measure of all others most directly 
calculated to produce such an effect. This was 
no other than what has since been adopted by 
another revolutionizing nation in our own times, 
the rejection of their belief in God, and the esta¬ 
blishment of idolatry as the national religion. 
The parallel between the two cases is so direct 
and curious, that I trust I shall be pardoned if I 
transcribe the whole passage relative to it. 

“ And Jeroboam said in his heart, now shall 
“ the kingdom return to the House of David: If 
“ this people go up to do sacrifice in the House 
“ of the Lord at Jerusalem, then shall the heart 
“ of this people turn again unto their lord, even 
“ unto Rehoboam king of Judah, and they shall 
“ kill me, and go again to Rehoboam king'of 
“ Judah. Whereupon the king took counsel, and 
“ made two calves of gold, and said unto them, 
“ It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem; 


46 


“ behold thy gods, 0 Israel, which brought thee 
“ up out of the land of Egypt. And he set the 
“ one in Bethel, and the other put he in Dan. 
“ And this thing became a sin; for the people 
“ went to worship before the one, even unto 

“ Dan. And he made an house of high places, 

• / 

“ and made priests of the lowest of the people, 
“ which were not of the sons of Levi.”* 

The parallel, strong as it is, does not end here. 
The same causes, under similar circumstances, 
invariably produce similar effects. In the king¬ 
dom of Israel, as in that of France, the immediate 
consequence of a revolt against God and the 
king was the exaltation of the dregs of the 
people, the persecution of the noble, the loyal, 
and the religious, and the general emigration of 
the latter. We are distinctly told that “ After 
“ this thing,” (namely, the revolt and subversion 
of the national religion) “ Jeroboam,” (the suc¬ 
cessful Philip Egalite of his day) “ returned not 
“ from his evil way, but made of the lowest of 
“ the people priests of the high places: whoso- 
“ ever would, he consecrated him.” f And again 
we are informed that “ The Priests and Le- 
“ vites that were in all Israel resorted to Reho- 
“ boam out of all their coasts, leaving their 
“ suburbs and their possession, and came to 
“Judah and Jerusalem; for Jeroboam and his 
“ sons had cast them off from executing the 


* 1 Kings, c. xii. v. 26 to 31 inclus. 
t 1 Kings, c. xiii. v. S3. 


47 




“ priest’s office unto the Lord, and he ordained 
“ him priests for the high places, and for the 
“ devils, and for the calves which he had made. 
“ And, after them, out of all the Tribes of Israel 
“ such as set their hearts to seek the Lord God 
“ of Israel came to Jerusalem, to sacrifice unto 
“ the Lord God of their fathers: so they strength- 
“ ened the kingdom of Judah, and made Reho- 
“ boam the son of Solomon strong, three years; 
“ for three years they walked in the way of 
“ David and Solomon.”* . 

Such was the state of the two kingdoms after 
their final separation. The population of the 
kingdom of Israel consisted of Nine entire Tribes; 
that of Judah of only Three. To the latter were 
added, for a short period, certain stragglers from 
the Israelitish tribes, who cannot therefore be 
taken into the account. But, as something like 
an argument in favour of this part of Aristseas’s 
story may be founded on this circumstance, on 
a supposition that the return of these emigrants 
might not have been quite so comprehensive as 
it is described, but that some out of all the tribes 
might have remained, whose descendants, pre¬ 
serving their genealogies, might fairly be consi¬ 
dered as legitimate representatives of the Nine 
Israelitish tribes, it will be necessary to ascertain 
this fact; and this may be done very satisfac¬ 
torily, by a reference to the 2nd Book of Chro¬ 
nicles, in which the holy penman, treating of the 


* 2 Chrou. e. xi. v. 13—17 inelus. 


48 


reign of Asa, king of Judah, inthe year 941 B.C., 
and only 34 years after the revolt of the Israelites, 
writes thus: “ And he (Asa) gathered all Judah 
“ and Benjamin, and the strangers with them, 
“ out of Ephraim and Manasseh, and out of Si- 
“ meon; for they fell to him out of Israel in 
“ abundance, when they saw that the Lord God 
“ was with him: so they gathered themselves 
“ together at Jerusalem.” * This is positive, ex¬ 
plicit, and uncontradicted by any other passage 
in the Jewish history. It affords us a direct 
authority for pronouncing, that no portion of the 
original Jewish nation formed a part of the king¬ 
dom of Judah, or resided at Jerusalem, save the 
Three Tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi, and 
certain emigrants, no matter what their numbers 
might be, from the Two Tribes of Simeon and of 
Ephraim and Manasseh. So that this authority, 
by evident implication excluding any portion of 
the other Seven Tribes, affords full evidence 
that a selection of interpreters out of each of 
the Twelve Tribes was impossible. 

Of this, however, there is other, and equally 
convincing testimony, to be found in subsequent 
passages of the Old Testament. 

The first circumstance which we meet with is 
nearly concurrent, in point of date, with the re¬ 
volt of which we have been treating, and is highly 
important, as being no less than a denunciation, 
from the Almighty himself, of the judgments 


* 2 Chron. c. xv. v. 9. 


49 


\ 


which would fall on the rebellious and apostate 
people of Israel. Though the conduct of Jero¬ 
boam amounts to a pretty strong proof that he 
had not the fear of God before his eyes in the 
days of his prosperity, he appears, when cala¬ 
mity fell upon him, not to have been quite so 
confident of the principles by which his actions 
had been regulated. His son having fallen sick, he 
privately applied for succour and spiritual comfort 
to the prophet Abijah, who had migrated from his 
dominions into those of Rehoboam. In this expec¬ 
tation, however, he was disappointed; for, after de¬ 
nouncing heavy judgments on him and his family, 
the prophet thus continued: “ The Lord shall 
“ smite Israel, as a reed is shaken in the water, 
“ and He shall root up Israel out of this good land 
“ which He gave to their fathers, and shall scatter 
“ them beyond the river; because they have 
“ made their groves, provoking the Lord to anger: 
“ and He shall give Israel up, because of the sins 
“ of Jeroboam, who did sin, and who made Israel 
“ to sin. 5 ’ * We shall soon see how literally this 
prophecy was fulfilled, by the complete subver¬ 
sion of the kingdom of Israel, and the transpor¬ 
tation of its entire population beyond the River, 
that is, the Euphrates, whence, to this day, they 
never have returned. 

Let us now trace the steps, by which this great 
event was brought about. 

The emigrants from the revolted tribes having, 

* 1 Kings, c. xiv, v. 15. 


H 


50 


as we have seen, returned at the expiration of 
three years, the enmity between the two nations 
speedily broke out into open hostility, and war 
subsisted between them for the space of 235 
years ; at an early period of which Baasha, king 
of Israel, erected the fortress of Ramah, to pro¬ 
tect his frontier, and to prevent any one from 
going to or coming from Judsea;* consequently, 
all possibility of farther emigration was cut off, 
and no accession of stragglers from the Israelitish 
tribes could have taken place. Nor, indeed, with 
respect to the question before us, would such an 
accession hate been of any importance; for, 
during the whole of this long period, the kingdom 
of Israel continued in a state of gross atheism and 
idolatry.f 

Such was the relative state of the two king¬ 
doms, when Tiglath-Pileser, king of Assyria, in¬ 
vaded and took all that portion of the kingdom 
of Israel which lay to the eastward of the river 
Jordan, and carried off the whole of the inha¬ 
bitants as captives into Assyria, whence there 
is no evidence that any of them ever returned.^ 
Within nineteen years after this, Shalmanezer, 
king of Assyria, invaded the kingdom of Israel, 
and, having taken the capital, carried the whole 
of the inhabitants of the country into captivity, 
and placed them in Assyria, and in the cities of 
the Medes; thereby literally fulfilling the pro- 

* * c. xv, v. 17. f 2 Kings, c. xv, v. 24. 

t 2 Kings, c. xv, v, 29. 


51 


phecy, which had been delivered 254 years be¬ 
fore by Abijah to Jeroboam, and which is plainly 
alluded to by the holy penman: “ Therefore the 
“ Lord was very angry with Israel, and removed 
“ them out of His sight; and the Lord rejected 
all the seed of Israel, and afflicted them, and 
“ delivered them into the hand of spoilers, until 
“ He had cast them out of His sight; for he rent 
“ Israel from the House of David.” * And 
again—“ The children of Israel walked in all the 
“ sins of Jeroboam, they departed not from them, 
“ until the Lord removed Israel out of His sight, as 
“ He had said by all his servants the prophets. 
“ So was Israel carried away out of their own 
“ land to Assyria to this day.”f Here are no 
ambiguous words; the proposition is general, 
and includes the whole population of the coun¬ 
try, the entire mass of which, without exception, 
was carried off into a distant captivity, from 
which neither they nor their descendants ever 
returned. And so thoroughly was this deporta¬ 
tion effected, and so entire was the depopulation 
which ensued on it, that the Assyrian conqueror 
found himself under the necessity of re-peopling 
the country with colonies of his own subjects. 
“ And the king of Assyria brought men from Ba- 
“ bylon, and from Cuthah, and from Ava, and 
“ from Hamath, and from Sepharvaim, and placed 
“ them in the cities of Samaria instead of the 
“ children of Israel; and they possessed Samaria, 


* 2 Kings, c. xvii, v. 17 & 18. 


* 


f Ibid. v. 22 & 23. 


** 

• • 

52 

0 

“ and dwelt in the cities thereof.”* Nor, from 
this entire change of inhabitants, did any im¬ 
provement take place with respect either to faith 
or to religious practices; for “ every one of these 
“ nations made gods of their own, and put them 
“ in the houses of the high places which the Sa- 
“ maritans had made; every nation in their cities 
“ wherein they dwelt: And the men of Babylon 
“ made Succoth-benoth, and the men of Cuth 
“ made Nergal, and the men of Hamath made 
“ Ashima, and the Avites made Nibhaz and Tar- 
“ tak, and the Sepharvites burnt their chil- 
“ dren in fire to Adrammelech and Anamme- 
“ lech the gods of Sepharvaim : they made unto 
“ themselves of the lowest of them priests of the 
“ high places, which sacrificed for them in the 
“ houses of the high places; and served their 
“ own gods, after the manner of the nations whom 
“ they carried away from thence. Unto this day 
“ they do after the former manners: they fear 
“ not the Lord, neither do they after their sta- 
“ tutes, or after their ordinances, or after the law 
“ and commandment which the Lord commanded 
“ the children of Jacob whom He named Israel: 
“ they served their graven images, both their 
“ children, and their childrens children : as did 
“ their fathers, so do they unto this day.”')' 

As these events took place two hundred and 
four years before the termination of the Baby¬ 
lonish captivity, several material inferences may 

* 2 Kings, c. xvii, v. 24. 


t Ibid. v. 30 & scq. 


53 


be drawn from them. First, that, as the persons 
so carried away were already gross idolaters, 
there is no ground for supposing that they re¬ 
turned to their ancient faith, during their resi¬ 
dence in an idolatrous country. Secondly, that, 
as it has been proved that the Babylonish cap¬ 
tives had lost the usage of the Hebrew language 
in the course of only seventy years, there can be 
no doubt of the same effect having been produced 
on those who were transported into Assyria and 
Media, the circumstances of expatriation and 
subjection being the same, and the period being 
three times as long. Thirdly, that, as no com¬ 
munication had existed between the kingdoms of 
Israel and Judah for two hundred and thirty-five 
years antecedent to the captivity of the former, 
as no communication could possibly have taken 
place between the people of Judah and the As¬ 
syrian captives during the further space of two 
hundred and four years, such an entire cessation 
of intercourse makes it altogether incredible that 
any part of the Israelitish people ever returned 
to Jerusalem, even if we were not in possession, 
from the testimony of Ezra and Nehemiah, of 
sufficient evidence that none but the Babylonish 
captives did return. 

The direct corollary from these facts must be, 
that the selection of Six Interpreters out of Each 
of the Twelve Tribes of Israel was impossible, 
and that therefore the story told by Aristaeas is 
false : and, with this observation, I take leave of 
him and his history; which I should have con- 


54 


siclered as undeserving of the minute attention 
thus bestowed on it, were it not the sole autho¬ 
rity in existence, on which rest the time when, 
the place where, or the persons by whom the 
Septuagint version was made. Whatever else 
we can guess at, respecting these particulars, 
must be collected from fragments of ancient 
authors, and from inferences and conjectures of 
learned moderns. From a brief consideration of 
these, let us endeavour to ascertain what was 
the probable origin of this celebrated perform¬ 
ance, and decide how far our Critic is justified in 
asserting, that “ no reasonable doubt can exist, 
“ that the Authors of the Septuagint Version 
“ possessed the means of making it most faithful 
“ to the original.” 

All writers on the subject concur in the opi¬ 
nion, that a Greek Version of the Old Testament 
did exist in the year 277, before Christ. Of all 
the ancient authors who *have treated of the 
subject, Aristobulus is the only one who gives 
an account of it, different from that bequeathed 
to us by Aristseas. There is nothing inconsistent 
or improbable in what he says, and the circum¬ 
stance of his having lived at the distance of only 
152 years after the acknowledged date of such 
translation, seems to afford a ground for sup¬ 
posing that he might know something of it. 
Had such a transaction occurred, as that told by 
Aristseas, it must have been known to, and would 
have been mentioned by one who wrote ex¬ 
pressly on the subject of biblical translations. 


But he is silent respecting it, though as a Jew 
he must, had he known of it, have partaken in 
the glory resulting to his religion and his nation 
from a circumstance so honourable to both; and 
as a philosopher, and one too engaged in the 
discussion of a question depending altogether 

on the existence of a Greek Version, it cannot 

• • 

be supposed, that, had there then been such a 
one, he would have left it unnoticed: for the 
point which he undertook to prove was, that 
Plato, and other Greek philosophers had bor¬ 
rowed from the writings of Moses; in proof of 
which he asserted, that “ the Holy Scriptures 
“ had been for the most part translated into the 
“ Greek tongue, before the period of the Persian 
“ empire, or of Alexander the Great.” There is 
nothing improbable in this assertion. There 
certainly are many striking points of resemblance 
to passages of the sacred volume, discoverable 
in the writings of the Greek philosophers; from 
the celebrity of the Jewish nation at that period, 
it is far from unlikely, that the code of their 
religion and their law was not unknown by their 
neighbours, and it could have become known to 
them solely through the medium of a translation. 
Nor can any valid objection arise with respect to 
the date assigned to it by Aristobulus; as the 
Holy Scriptures undoubtedly were known by 
Cyrus, and were, in all probability, equally 
known by Alexander the Great, who commenced 
his reign in the year 335 B. C., only 58 years 
antecedent to the period universally allowed 


as that at which a Greek translation existed, and 
who actually visited Jerusalem. Such being the 
case, it can hardly be contended, that the Sacred 
r Writings could have remained unknown by those, 
whose studies were particularly directed to the 
acquisition of knowledge, and more especially of 
that species of knowledge, which only those 
writings could impart. Of such philosophers, 
Plato and Aristotle may be considered as the 
most distinguished. Plato died only thirteen 
years before Alexander’s accession, and Aristotle 
thirteen years after it. Under such circum¬ 
stances, nothing can be more credible than the 
assertion of Aristobulus, who does not appear to 
have had any interest in imposing upon us, who 
accidentally mentioned the fact as an illustration 
of the subject of which he happened to be treat¬ 
ing, and who lived at a time, when it was by no 
means improbable that his information might 
have been correct. But his testimony does not 
end here. He proceeds thus: “ But a more 
“ perfect translation was made of the whole, in 
“ the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphia, under the 
“ superintendance of Demetrius Phalareus.” This 
also is extremely probable, inasmuch as, in the 
course of that monarch’s reign, a very great 
number of Jews were established in Egypt, who 
publicly exercised their religion, but who, 
speaking generally the Greek language, and 
being, with few exceptions, unacquainted with 
the Hebrew, must naturally have been desirous 
01 a version, more correct than that which then 


57 


existed. This wish would, as naturally, have 
induced those, who might conceive themselves 
to be best qualified for such an undertaking, to 
set about it, and this too under the patronage of * 
Demetrius Phalareus, not indeed in the reign of 
Ptolemy Philadelphus, but in that of his imme¬ 
diate predecessor, whose prime minister he was; 

This appears to be so probable an account of 
the origin of the version commonly called the 
Septuagint, that I strongly incline to think it is 
the true one. It must not however be con¬ 
cealed, that some, and those no mean authorities, 
have entertained a different opinion; and I prin¬ 
cipally regret, that at the head of these is to be 
classed the very learned Dr. Hody; the more 
so, as in my objection to Aristeeas’s narrative, 
and in many of my conclusions, I have had the 
good fortune to find myself borne out by his 
elaborate work, “ De Bibliorum textibus origi- 
“ nalibus, versionibus,” &c. It is safer to fight 
under the Telamonian shield of such an ally, 
than to enter the lists against him; but, since I 
am reduced to such a necessity, I must encounter 
the peril attendant on it, and trust to the indul¬ 
gence of my readers. 

The following is the passage in the Doctor’s 
work to which I allude: “ Si credimus commen- 
“ tariis, qu8e olim ferebantur sub Aristobuli 
“ nomine, extitit olim qusedam Pentateuchi versio 
“ Grseca, facta non modo ante Septuaginta- 
“ viralem, sed et ante Persarum imperium. 

“ Earn vero mere fictitiam esse, et Aristobulum 

i 


58 


“ finxisse versionem quanclam ante Septuaginta- 
“ viralem exstitisse, quo probabile fieret Plato- 
“ nem, aliosque illos veteres Gr8ecorum philoso- 
“ phos, & lege Mosaica qusedam desumpsisse, 
“ mihi res videtur certissima et minime dubia. 
“ Non modo Sanctis Patribus omnibus, verum 
“ etiam Josepho, Philoni, atque ipsi Pseudo- 
“ Aristseae, ignotam fuisse istiusmodi versionem 
“ constat, qui omnes de Septuaginta-virali tan- 
“ quam omnium prima loquuntur.”* 

Here Dr. Hody distinctly asserts, as a thing 
most certain and very little doubtful, that Ari- 
stobulus had broached a falsehood, fabricated for 
the purpose of supporting another proposition. 
A charge so grave ought to be sustained by 
strong evidence. What is the amount of that 
adduced by Dr. Hody?—This: “ It is certain, 
“ that not only all the holy Fathers, but Josephus, 
“ Philo, and Pseudo-Aristseas himself, were igno- 

* Lib. iv, c. 1, §2. 

“ If we credit the commentaries formerly circulated under the 
“ name of Aristobulus, there once existed a certain Greek ver- 
“ sion of the Pentateuch, anterior not only to the Septuagint, but 
“ to the Persian Empire. That this is merely false, and that 
“ Aristobulus feigned the existence of a version anterior to the 
“ Septuagint, for the purpose of shewing the probability of 
“ Plato and other old Greek philosophers having borrowed from 
“ the Law of Moses, appears to me to be a thing most certain 
“ and very little doubtful. It is clear that not only all the 
“ Holy Fathers, but Josephus, Philo, and Pseudo-Aristaeas 
“ himself, were ignorant of the existence of such a version, as 
“ all of them concur in speaking of the Septuagint as the ori- 
i( ginal translation.” 


59 


“ rant of the existence of such a version as that 
“ mentioned by Aristobulus, all of them con- 
“ curring in speaking of the Septuagint as the 
“ original translation.” 

Of these three authorities, that of the Pseudo- 
Aristaeas, a notorious forgery of the most gross 
and contemptible sort, ought not to have been 
brought forward in support of a serious argu¬ 
ment. Let us therefore lay it aside, and consider 
what the testimony of Philo and Josephus 
amounts to. Merely to an inference, drawn from 
their speaking of the Septuagint as the original 
translation, that they were ignorant of that men¬ 
tioned by Aristobulus. This is a mere “ argu- 
“ mentum ab ignorantia,” which in no case can 
prove more, than that they were ignorant of that 
of which Aristobulus was informed. 

It is unnecessary to say more of Dr. Hody’s 
evidence; let us therefore consider the propo¬ 
sition which it was brought forward to support, 
which is* that Aristobulus fabricated a story 
respecting a version antecedent to the Persian 
empire, for the purpose of proving that Plato 
and other Greek philosophers had borrowed 
from the writings of Moses. As I have already 
stated my reasons for thinking his account of the 
matter extremely probable, I will now, in my 
turn, produce an evidence, which I apprehend 
will make it perfectly clear, not only that Ari¬ 
stobulus was right, but that Dr. Hody was 
decidedly of that opinion. This evidence is Dr. 


60 


Hody himself, who, in three distinct passages of 
his above quoted work, thus writes: 

Haec autem cum ita se habuerint, cum con- 
“ stet in Egypto extitisse sub Ptolomeo Lagi 
“ (i. e. Soteri) et Philadelpho tantam Judseorum 
“ multitudinem, facillima et admodum probabilis 
“ fuerit conjectura, non factam fuisse librorum 
“ sacrorum interpretationem, ut reconderetur in 
“ regi& bibliothec4, sed ab Alexandrinis quibus- 
“ dam Judseis, vel sponte su&, vel ipsorum 
“ Synedrii jussu, in gratiam popularium ibi de- 
“ gentium.”* In another passage he asserts, 
that “ Auctores versionis, librorum saltern plu- 
“ rimorum, fuisse Alexandrinos.”'}' And in a 
third, after shewing that the Prophetical Books 
were not read in the synagogues before the reign 
of Antiochus Epiphanes, he says, “ Hinc facile 
“ fuerit conjectura colligere, quo circiter tem- 
“ pore Prophetarum libri in Grsecorum ser- 
“ monem traducti fuerint. Judseorum nemirum 

* Lib. ii, c. 3, § 2. 

u Such being the state of things, as it is certain that there 
“ existed, in the times of Ptolemy Soter and Philadelphus, such 
“ a multitude of Jews in Egypt, it may most easily and pro- 
“ bably be conjectured, that the translation of the sacred 
“ books was made, not for the purpose of hiding it in the royal 
“ library, but by certain Jews of Alexandria, either spontane- 
“ ously, or by order of their Sanhedrim, for the use of those 
“ who dwelt there.” 

t Lib. ii, c. 4. 

“ The authors of the version, of at least the greater part of 
“ the books, were Alexandrians.” 


61 


“ Hierosolymitanorum, qui libros jam propheta- 
“ rum in templo suo et synagogis legere con* 
“ sueverant, exemplum amplecti Alexandrinis 
“ visum est; et ideo prophetarum interpretation 
“ operam dederunt, gravibus quibusdam (ut 
“ videtur) et doctis viris ad munus illud dele- 
“ gatis, ut antea fecerunt eorum majores de 
“ Pentateucho.”* 

* * • ** 

Dr. Hody was so learned a man, and his work, 
from which the above extracts are taken, is of 
such high and deserved reputation, that I am 
ready to rest the case on his own single autho- 
rity. 

He assigns a specific period, in the course of 
which the versions mentioned by him were made, 
commencing with the reign of Ptolemy Soter, 
and ending with that of Antiochus Epiphanes. 
Now, the reign of Ptolemy Soter commenced 
about the year 324 B. C., and at or near that 
time must, according to the Doctor’s statement, 
have commenced the Alexandrian Greek version 
of the Mosaic Law. This date operates in a two¬ 
fold manner on the question. It antedates the 

• i t*. • .+ ' k . ■ • ' J • , si p V • , ' 

* Lib. ii, c. 9. 

“ Hence may easily be conjectured, about what period the 
“ Books of the Prophets were translated into Greek. The 
(i Alexandrians, following the example of the Jerusalem Jews, 
“ who had already been accustomed to read the books of the 
“ prophets in their temple and synagogues, set about the 
“ interpretation of them, certain grave and learned men (as 
“ it appears) being delegated for the work, as their ancestors 
“ had formerly done with respect to the Pentateuch.” 


6 2 


transaction by forty-seven years, and thereby 
falsifies the account of it given by Aristseas; and 
it brings the matter in dispute between the Doctor 
and Aristobulus to so nice a point, as almost to 
prove the latter to have been in the right; for at 
this time Aristotle was living, Plato had been 
dead only four-and-twenty years, and Alexander 
the Great died in the very year of Ptolemy Soter’s 
accession. This corresponds with the statement 
made by Aristobulus, so far as relates to the coin¬ 
cidence between a Greek version and th6 period 
of Alexander the Great. 

Nor is the time, assigned by Dr. Hody for the 
termination of these Alexandrian translations, 
less important than that assigned by him for their 
commencement. Antiochus Epiphanes was con¬ 
temporary with Ptolemy Philometor, who died 
in the year 145 B. C., or 132 years after the pe¬ 
riod fixed by Aristseas and his copyers for the 
completion of the Septuagint. This of course 
falsifies their account; and it affords a very suffi¬ 
cient interval for the fabrication of Aristaeas s 
romance and its adoption by Philo, who flourished 
more than a century and a half afterwards. No¬ 
thing, indeed, could have been more natural, 
than its general circulation and universal accep¬ 
tation by the Jews both of Alexandria and of Je¬ 
rusalem. As all nations in their traditions are 

* - » , -, v 

fond of the marvellous, especially when employed 
to adorn and dignify their prejudices, whether 
sacred or profane, it is by no means surprising 
that a legend so wonderful in all its circumstances, 


63 


and withal so flattering to their personal as well 
as national pride and consequence, should have 
met with a ready welcome from an oppressed 
and despised people, who must gladly have caught 
at such an opportunity of proving that, whatever 
might be their own present lowliness and degra¬ 
dation, they were the descendants of illustrious 
ancestors, the especially protected of heaven, 
who had received and transmitted to them the 
sacred volume of their religion and their law, for 
a copy of which a powerful and enlightened mo¬ 
narch had not scrupled to pay a sum, for less 
than which, in all probability, all the then exist¬ 
ing books in the world might have been pur¬ 
chased. 

But to proceed a step further. Nothing can be 
plainer, from the Doctor’s own direct acknow¬ 
ledgment in the passage just referred to, than 
that the Holy Scriptures must have been trans¬ 
lated at a period much more remote than that 
which he has assigned; as otherwise his learned 
Alexandrians could not have been employed in 
the performance of a task, similar to that which 
had long before been performed by their an¬ 
cestors the Jews of Jerusalem. This leaves the 
time when such a work was executed altogether 
indefinite and uncertain; nor can we from it, or 
any other authority, form even a guess by whom 
any of these versions were made. The amount 
of our knowledge on the subject is, that the story 
told by Aristreas is false, and that, though it is cer¬ 
tain that, at some time between the years 336 and 


G4 


141 B. C., translations of the Holy Scriptures 
were made, they were made by persons of whose 
names, qualifications, nay existence, we are ab¬ 
solutely ignorant. Such being the fair state¬ 
ment of the circumstances attendant on the ori¬ 
gin of the Septuagint version, I leave it to the 
intelligent and impartial reader to decide on the 
bold assertions of our Quarterly Critic, that “ no 
“ reasonable doubt can exist, that the authors 
“ of the Septuagint version possessed the means 
“ of making it most faithful to the originaland 
that “ translations were made when a dialect of 
“ the Hebrew language was vernacular.” 

I now proceed to trace the fortunes of this 
celebrated version, after it was, no matter when 
or by whom, launched into the world, and 
to ascertain how far our Critic is justified in 
asserting that “ it has been carefully handed 
“ down for our use,”* and that “ there is not a 
“ semblance of argument to excite the least 
“suspicion, that the version now called the 
‘ Septuagint is materially different from that 
‘‘ which has always borne this name.”f Asser¬ 
tions bolder than these, or couched in terms more 
unequivocal, cannot be made. On their truth or 
falsehood must depend the character of our Critic, 
both as a writer and as a man of veracity: for, in 
a case of this nature, involving as it does the 
highest and most sacred interests, the ignorance 
of an author can be no apology for his error. 

* Quar. Rev. No. 37? p. 253. f Ibid. p. 261. 


65 


This is the doctrine laid down by the conductors 
of the Quarterly Review themselves.* “It is 
“ not,” say they, “ a sufficient justification of a 
“ writers moral character, that he does not mean 
“ to deceive, and that, when he leads his reader 
“ astray, he has himself been previously misled: 
“ we think that a writer is under no inconsider- 
“ able responsibility in his moral character, to 
“ set down as fact no more than he knows; for 
“ the injury to public confidence is quite as great 
“ from his presumptuous ignorance, as it would 
“ be from absolute falsehood.” This is speak¬ 
ing, as those gentlemen always speak when 
they deliver their own sentiments, with candour 
and good sense. I therefore appeal to them¬ 
selves, and will abide by their own judgment of 
the writer whom they have brought forward into 
notice, if I shall succeed in proving, as I pre¬ 
sume to hope I shall be able to do, the entire 
falsehood of both these confident assertions. 

I profess myself unable to comprehend what 
that writer means, when he talks of the general 
reception of the Septuagint among the Jews from 
the first .f Will he condescend to say when that 
first was ? He will probably find it difficult to do 
this, as he will not meet with any author, sacred or 
profane, who mentions it, before the time of Philo 
and Josephus, who wrote at the distance of three 
centuries after its probable date. This however 
is a point not worth disputing. The fact is, that 

< V* 

* Quar. Rev. No. 25, p. 215. + Ibid. No. 37, p. 261. 

K 


66 


the Greek language having been by degrees ge¬ 
nerally diffused through that part of Asia, it be¬ 
came in many places more familiar to the people 
than the Chaldee or Syriac, and as such was in¬ 
troduced into the synagogues as a preferable 
vehicle of the meaning of the sacred text. It is, 
however, not undeserving of remark, that the 
first intimations which we possess of its having 
been so received, are accompanied by acknow¬ 
ledgments of its having been grossly corrupted, 
not, as our Critic is pleased to say/ by the neg¬ 
ligence and mistakes of transcribers, but wilfully 
by the Jews themselves, for the worst and-most 
impious purpose. This occurred very shortly 
after the introduction of Christianity. The early 
preachers of that doctrine made many quota¬ 
tions from this Septuagint version, which not 
only confirmed the truth of their own faith, but 
militated in the strongest manner against the 
perversity and obstinacy of those, who, in de¬ 
spite of the evidence afforded by their own Law 
and their own Prophets, refused to acknowledge 
that Jesus Christ was the promised Messiah, 
and that on belief and faith in Him alone de¬ 
pended the salvation of mankind. The Jews 
were not long in discovering, that the knowledge 
of the sacred truths contained in the Holy Scrip¬ 
tures, thus generally diffused through the medium 
of this popular translation, tended not only to 
affect their own doctrines, but to discredit their 
establishment and practices. Had they possessed 

* Quar. Rev. No. 37, p. 261. 


G7 


the same power which was afterwards enjoyed 
by the Papists, they probably would, when thus 
assailed, have exercised it in the same manner, 
by prohibiting the use of so dangerous a weapon. 
As however it was not in their power to do this, 
they were necessitated to adopt another course 
of proceeding, by altering the text of some pas¬ 
sages of the Septuagint version, and by erasing 
others.* This in some measure answered their 
purpose, at least to the extent of corrupting the 
copies used in the synagogues, and within the 
immediate sphere of their own influence; and it 
had the further effect of introducing a degree of 
confusion and doubt with respect to the copies 
in the hands of the Christians, by enabling the 
Jews to oppose text to text, and authority to au¬ 
thority, which necessarily affected the force of 
their quotations, and the inferences which they 
drew from them. And what could not but 
tend to increase these difficulties was, that 
these corruptions were not all introduced at 
once, but occasionally, as circumstances re¬ 
quired, some by the Jews of Jerusalem, some by 
the Hellenistic Jews, at different times and in 
different countries; so that not only the syna¬ 
gogue copies varied materially from those in the 
hands of the Christians, but they varied no less 
among themselves; insomuch that it became im¬ 
possible, by any other means than that of col- 

* Just. Mar. dial, cum Tryp. 297, 310.—Tertul. de cult. 

fcem. 1. 1, f 3_Hieron. Ep. ad Algas. ii, 2.—Grab, de vitiis 

70 Interp. 8. 




68 

lating these discordant copies with the Hebrew 
original, to ascertain which was right and which 
was wrong,—a task extremely difficult, if not im¬ 
possible to be performed. 

Such was the state to which the Septuagint 
was reduced, within less than an hundred years 
after the death of Christ. Were the case to rest 
here, it would sufficiently disprove the inference, 
which our Critic wishes to draw from the propo¬ 
sitions last quoted. The Septuagint version, as 
he asserts, might have been generally received 
among the Jews; it might have been quoted by our 
Saviour and the followers of His doctrine; but it 
was then not in the state in which it is now: it 
then was, what it purported to be, a faithful ver¬ 
sion of the original, illustrative of the truths pro¬ 
mulgated by the Messiah and the preachers of 
his divine word; had it so continued, the co¬ 
incidence between His revelation and the evi¬ 
dence adduced in its support would have been 
perfect; to destroy this was the object of the 
Jews, and that object was to a certain degree 
effected in the manner which has been men¬ 
tioned. To what extent these corruptions of 
the sacred text were at that time carried it is 
impossible for us now to ascertain, though we 
have ground for believing that it must have been 
considerable: but, whatever the number or the 
nature of those corruptions might have been, it 
is certain that they were found insufficient 
thoroughly to answer the purpose for which 
they were introduced. As there was only one 


69 


version, and that common to both parties, the 
discrepancies between the several copies were 
liable to detection; and the Christians, possess¬ 
ing as they did those which had not been adul¬ 
terated, must of course have been enabled on 
many occasions to confute their adversaries. It 
therefore became necessary for the Jews to re¬ 
sort to some more efficacious expedient. So long 
as the Septuagint should retain the high and 
sacred character which had been affixed to it, so 
long would it continue to operate as an authority 
against them. They accordingly lost no time in 
setting every engine to work; first, by raising a 
general clamour against the correctness of that 
version, and, secondly, by bringing forward a 
new translation, better calculated for the support 
of those erroneous doctrines, on which the main¬ 
tenance of their own cause and the confutation 
of the arguments advanced by the professors of 
Christianity depended. There was no difficulty 
in doing the first; and proper means were soon 
found for carrying into execution the second and 
most important part of their nefarious plan. 

There was at that time at Jerusalem, a doctor 
named Akiba, who was reputed to be deeply 
versed in Hebrew learning, and who had distin¬ 
guished himself as the most subtle and daring 
impugner of the Christian faith. He was no 
less eminent for his talent of fabricating legen¬ 
dary stories, calculated to overturn the doctrines 
on which Christianity was founded; one of which 
is still in existence, under the title of “ Sepher 


70 


Jezirah,” or “ The Book of the Creation,” pur¬ 
porting to have been written by the patriarch 
Abraham; and he is moreover charged with 
having carried his forgeries to the length of 
having been principally concerned in the falsifi¬ 
cation of various passages of the Holy Scriptures, 
for the purpose of enabling the champions of 
Judaism more successfully to contend with their 
Christian opponents.* * * § 

Among the disciples of this Rabbi Akiba, the 
most distinguished was Aquila, a native of Sinope 
in Pontus,t by birth a heathen, for interested 
and unworthy purposes a convert to Chris¬ 
tianity, J for his gross misconduct excommuni¬ 
cated and expelled from the church, and, finally, 
a proselyte to Judaism. }| Thus qualified, he was 
selected by the Jerusalem Rabbis to produce, 
under their guidance, a new translation of the 
Old Testament, calculated to support their doc¬ 
trines, and to supersede the authority of the 
Septuagint. So great was the diligence used 
on this occasion, that the work was completed 
and published under his name in the year 128, 
after the death of our Saviour. § Nothing was 
left undone by the Rabbis to exalt its reputation, 
and to bring it into general use. It was intro¬ 
duced, instead of the Septuagint, into their 
synagogues, where for a considerable time it 

* Lardner’s Works, vol. vii, p. 143. 

I* Epiph. de 70 Interpr. J Idem de Pond, et Mens. 

|1 Euseb. de demonstr. Evang. 1. 7, c. 1. 

§ Hieron. Comm. Ezek. c. 4. 


* 


71 


held its place, and proved no mean auxiliary 
in their controversy with the Christians, who 
were not prepared immediately to impeach its 
authority, and who probably were not sufficiently 
conversant with the Hebrew language, critically 
to decide on its correctness. 

A less perfect judgment can be formed of the 
merits of this version than might be expected, 
when we consider the extensive circulation into 
which it was forced, as only a few fragments of 
it have been preserved. But neither these, nor 
the known character and qualifications of the 
author, afford us any reason to regret the loss of 
the remainder. He appears to have taken on 
himself a task, for the execution of which he 
was eminently unqualified. The object which 
he professed to have in view, namely, a transla¬ 
tion of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, evi¬ 
dently required a correct and critical knowledge 
of both those languages. It clearly appears, 
however, that Aquila could not have possessed a 
correct and critical knowledge of either of them. 
As a native of Pontus, his own language must 
have been that generally spoken in his country, 
a kind of corrupt, or Getic Greek, as different 
from the language used by the polished nations 
of ancient Greece, as the barbarous “ Patois” of 
a remote province can be from the language 
spoken in the metropolis. Nor does it appear, 
that he ever had an opportunity of improving 
himself in this respect. All we know of him is, 
that, having been a heathen, he became a Chris- 


72 


i 


tian from the same motives by which Simon 
Magus had been influenced; that he was ex¬ 
pelled from the communion which his conduct 
had disgraced; and that, having become a pro¬ 
selyte to Judaism, he at an advanced age studied 
Hebrew under Akiba. From all this, the obvious 
inferences are,—that his knowledge of Greek did 
not qualify him to make a correct and critical 
translation into that language—that his know¬ 
ledge of Hebrew did not qualify him to make a 
correct and critical translation from it—and 
that he must have had a strong bias on his mind, 
to give such a turn and colouring to his trans¬ 
lation, as might best serve his own interests and 
those of his employers. Of the truth of these 
inferences we have sufficient evidence, partly, 
from what remains of his work, partly from the 
testimony of those who had opportunities of 
seeing it in a more perfect state. Of such por¬ 
tions of it as still exist the style is rough and 
uncouth, servilely adhering to the idiom of the 
Hebrew in preference to its obvious sense and 
connection. Epiphanius expressly declares, that 
he never scrupled to put such an interpretation 
on the sacred text as best suited his purpose, 
more particularly of such passages as bore tes¬ 
timony in favour of the divine nature and mission 
of our Saviour:* and Jerome very unceremo¬ 
niously pronounces, “ Aquila autem, proselytus 
“ et contentiosus interpres, qui non solum verba, 
“ sed etymologias quoque verborum transferre 

* De 70 Interpr. 



73 


** conatus est, jure projicitur k nobis.”* The 
censure, thus cast on him and his performance, 
appears indeed not to have been at all too 
severe, if we may judge from what remains of 
his work, particularly from his interpretation of 
the 14th verse of the 7th chapter of Isaiah, where 
the literal translation of the words used by the 
prophet is “ The Virgin shall conceive,” but 
which he translates, in the most Anti-christian 
sense, “ *H vsocins Iv yxcflp) o’vXXxfji&xvei j” sedulously 
avoiding the word “ vraptevog” on which the 
Christians mainly relied in their exposition of 
the prophecy, and adopting in its place, with a 
design of supporting the doctrines of his unbe¬ 
lieving employers, another word of equivocal 
meaning, of which virginity or its reverse might 
equally be predicated. A like opinion of this 
passage is given by the learned Montfaucon. 
“ Verisimile est eum a voce 'vapQsvog consulto 
“ declinasse, quia hac maxime prophetia ute- 
“ bantur Christiani pro sua tuenda fide. Imo 
“ nec vocem ‘ aVoHpupo?,’ abscondita, quam alibi 
“ pro Hebraic^ rvhy exprimenda adhibet, hie 

“ usurpare voluit; quia forte hsee interpretatio 
“ puellam, quse virorum aspectui occulta man- 

serat, atque ideo Virginem, exprimebat.”f 

r * ' ' „ * 

* De opt. gen. interpr. 

“ But Aquila, a proselyte, and a contentious interpreter, 
il who attempted to translate not only words, but the etymo- 
“ logies of words, is justly rejected by us. 

f Praelim. in Hexapl. p. 49. 

« It is probable that he designedly avoided using the word 

, L 


74 






What were the consequences of this perversion 
of the sacred text will appear from what we are 
told by Ireneus, nearly a contemporary witness. 
“ Hinc Ebioneei ex Josepho Christum natum 
“ aiunt.” * It will be recollected, that these 
Ebionites were a sort of mongrel religionists, 
half Jews and half Christians, the Socinians, 
Unitarians or Deists of the Second Century, from 
whom those of our present day are lineally de¬ 
scended. They all derive their pedigree from 
the same ancestor, the suborned Jew Aquila, 
convicted of a premeditated design to corrupt 
the Holy Scriptures, and now, for the first time, 
brought forward by our Critic, as having pro¬ 
duced a translation, with advantages for the right 
interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures far 
greater than any modern translator possesses 
without their aid, and as therefore being justly 
entitled to very great consideration.'!' Had not 
the conductors of the Quarterly Review been off 
their accustomed guard, they never could have 
sanctioned with their respectable authority a pas- 

♦ * i *\ •' * 

st ‘ 'usocpOwos,’ because the Christians principally relied on this 
xi prophecy in defence of their faith. Nor was he more dis- 

posed to adopt the word ‘ knroxpvQoq,’ ‘ hidden,’ by which, 
“ in other passages, he translates the Hebrew word ; pro* 

t ; - 

“ bably because this interpretation expressed a girl, who had 
“ remained concealed from the sight of men, and was therefore 
4 * a virgin.” 

• * L 3, c. 24. 

“ Hence the Ebionites assert that Christ was the son of 
“ Joseph.” 

t Quart. Rev. No. 37, p. 261. 


75 


sage like this, so directly contrary to their own 
avowed principles, and to the whole tenor of 
their orthodox and enlightened publication. 

But Aquila is not the only translator on whom 
our Critic relies. In the same rank with him, 
and in the same terms of confident approbation, 
he brings forward two more, Theodotion and 
Symmachus. Let us inquire what the preten¬ 
sions of these personages may be to such a high 
distinction. 

Of the translation of Theodotion, like that of 
Aquila, only certain fragments have been pre¬ 
served; but they contain quite enough to enable 
us to form a correct judgment of his merits. Like 
Aquila, he was a heathen native of Pontus; but 
he was moreover a regularly professed Ebionite, 
thoroughly impregnated with their doctrines, 
and initiated into all the mysteries of their sect. 
How must our Critic, who so strongly vouches 
his authority, be surprised, when he hears the 
character given of him by one of the highest 
authorities of our church! “ Theodotionem, qui 
r “ utique post adventum Christi incredulus fuit; 
“ licet eum quidem dicant Hebionitam, qui altero 
“ genere Judaeus est.”* Or this—“ Ex Theo- 
“ dotionis editione ab Origene additum est— 
“ praesertim cum ea quae addita sunt, ex horni- 
“ nis Judaei atque Blasphemi editione trans- 

* Hieron. praef. Com. in Dan. 

« Theodotion—who assuredly, after Christ’s advent, was an 
<c unbeliever; though some term hin^ an Ebionite, which is 
“ another species of Jew.” 



76 


“ tulerit.” * That this opinion of him was cor¬ 
rect is evident from the remaining parts of his 
work, which prove the pains which he took to 
pervert the sacred text, in such passages as sup¬ 
ported the Christian faith, or bore hard upon 
either the Jewish or the Ebionitish tenets. There 
is a remarkable instance of this in his translation 
of the 26th verse of the 9th chapter of Daniel, 
which is properly and literally translatable, 
“ And after threescore and two weeks shall 
“ Messiah be cut off, but not for himself.” This 
text, as it stands in the original, forms a plain 
and explicit prophecy of that great and myste¬ 
rious event, whereby the redemption of mankind 
was to be consummated; but, as a true version 
of it would by no means have answered the pur¬ 
pose which Theodotion had in view, he thought 
proper to translate it thus : “ Kal [xtroc. rug tGfopdfag 

(( t ug duo, i%o\vQp£vQy l <r£ / lcu xal xgi[xoc, 

“ *x Uriv Iv avia ”—Which is, literally, “ And 
“ after sixty-two weeks, the ointment” (or the 
“ anointing”) “ shall be exterminated, and judg- 
“ ment,” (or “ damnation") is not in him” (or 
u it”). And this translation he had the assur¬ 
ance to publish as the true one, when the word 
“ rn&»,” “ Messiah,” “ The Anointed,” in the 
Hebrew original, stared him in the face; and 
this translation (transferred as shall hereafter 
be mentioned) at this very moment stands, word 

* u Additions were made by Origen from Theodotion’s 
<l Edition—and such additions he transferred from the edition 
“ of a Jew and a Blasphemer.” 


77 


/ 


for word, as part of the immaculate Septuagint, 
that version cried up by our Critic as the cri¬ 
terion of Scriptural perfection, as “ a faithful 
“ record of the true sense of the Hebrew Scrip- 
“ tures.” 

Let us now turn to Symmachus, and inquire 
what may be his pretensions to infallibility. 

Aquila and Theodotion had certainly made a 
considerable progress towards the corruption of 
the sacred text; but there was a stubborness in 
the original, which rendered a direct perversion 
of its meaning, in many cases, a matter of much 
difficulty, and which could in no other way be 
accommodated to the purposes of their em¬ 
ployers, than by what they were pleased to term 
“ a free and liberal translationpassing over 
verbal and grammatical niceties, and giving what 
was called the “ sense” of the passages, that is, 
such a sense as might best serve the interests of 
the sect, under the auspices of which such a 
version might be made. To produce such a ver¬ 
sion, Symmachus, by birth a Samaritan, by pro¬ 
fession an Ebionite, was selected.* He had more 
learning than had been possessed by either of his 
predecessors, and in point of style he was greatly 
their superior. Thus qualified, he undertook the 
task, and, about the year 200, produced the ver¬ 
sion of the Old Testament which bears his name; 
in which he not only for the most part adhered 

* Epiph. de Pond, et Mens. c. 16.—Euseb. Dem. Evang. 
1. 7 , c. 1. 


78 


to the errors of Aquila and Theodotion, but gave 
such loose and arbitrary interpretations of the 
text, as were best calculated to twist its meaning 
to his own purposes; so that, as the learned 
Prideaux rightly observes, he made his version 
rather a paraphrase than a just translation.* 

Of this free and liberal mode of translating 
many instances may be adduced; but one may 
be sufficient, as a specimen, to satisfy the reader 
that the charge against him is not unfounded. 
The literal translation of the 27th verse of the 
1st chapter of Genesis is, “ God created man in 
“ His image; in the image of God He created 
“ him.” This the Septuagint had already ren¬ 
dered by “ ’E TtoiyWiv o ©f og tou olvOpcoTrov ' xuT Imovx 
4C ©£» n rointrsv ccvlov that is, “ God made man ; ac- 
“ cording to the image of God He made him;” 
the first portion of which is not a true version of 
the text, a most material part of it being omitted. 
Aquila had rendered it, “ Kal sxV iv 6 ®sog <ru\ rou 

av6pW7TOV Iv ilXOUl aVTX, Iv SlXOVl ©£8 SUTKTEV «Here 

the word txlnrsv” may be objected to, as not pro¬ 
perly expressing the sense of the original, and 
there are two grammatical errors—the insertion 
of the preposition “ <rvu,” and the application of 
the plural to the singular “ avfy>&«r©y;” with 

the exception of these errors, into which a trans¬ 
lator of his qualifications might naturally enough 
be expected to fall, his interpretation of the pas¬ 
sage may be allowed, as may that of Theodotion, 


Prid. Conn. part. 2, b. 1, p. 73. 


I 


79 

which, with the omission of the word “ is 
simply a transcript of it. Last of all comes Sym- 
machus, who, with a noble contempt of all fore¬ 
going interpreters and of the sacred original it¬ 
self, thus gives us his version of the text: “ y ExJ urn 

iC 6 Qzog rou ccvQpooTrov zikovi SiuQopcp, opQiov o Qzog zkIhtsv 

ccJov .” On this it may be observed, that the word 
“ hapopos' has not only various, but contradictory 
meanings, the proper or improper application of 
which may render the passage in which it occurs 
true or false, sense or nonsense; and such proper 
or improper application is discoverable only from 
the context. It may be rendered by “ different,” 
“ excellent,” “ suitable,” “ disagreeing ;” but 
which of these meanings we are here to adopt, 
as we have no context to assist us, is a matter 
extremely difficult to decide upon, and it may be 
disputed whether this last great work of the Al¬ 
mighty was or was not fashioned in His own 
image, whether it was or was not excellent, 
different, suitable or disagreeing. Nor are we at 
all assisted by the second branch of the proposi¬ 
tion, “’'OpQiov o Qsog £xj«r£v ocvjov/’ that is, “God created 
“ him erect, or upright.” He might have been so, 
and yet not have been any of the things predi¬ 
cated of him in the first .part of the sentence. 
Let us see what this version amounts to, in what¬ 
ever way we may prefer to take it. “ God made 
man in a different, in an excellent , in a suitable , or 
in a disagreeing image; God made him erect , or 
upright” Compare any one of these modes with 
the true interpretation of the passage, and then 


80 


decide on the fidelity of Symmachus, and his au - 
thority as a translator. 

Such were the Four Versions, cited by our 
Critic in proof of his proposition, as authorities 
not to be disputed, as containing a faithful record 
of the true sense of the Hebrew Scriptures, and 
as being therefore justly entitled to very great 
consideration. The most curious part of the 
story, however, remains to be told. Not one 
of these Versions, charactered and dignified as 
they are by him, is in existence. Of Aquila, 
Theodotion and Symmachus merely a few scat¬ 
tered fragments have been preserved; and of the 
original Septuagint not a single copy remains. 
How it vanished, and how it has been succeeded 
by another, bearing the same title, but of yet 
more doubtful authority, I will now, with the 
indulgence of the reader, proceed briefly to 
state. 

The corruptions introduced by the Rabbis into 
the copies of the Septuagint, aided as they were 
by the new Jewish and Ebionitish versions, 
operated with great and rapid effect; insomuch 
that, about the year 230, or only thirty years 
after the version of Symmachus had been pub¬ 
lished, there did not exist a single copy of the 
Septuagint, which could be quoted as an undis¬ 
puted authority. Moved by this lamentable 
state of confusion, and anxious if possible to 
bring back the Septuagint to that condition of 
comparative purity which it had originally pos¬ 
sessed, . Origen diligently set to work. His 


81 


materials for so arduous an undertaking were 
indeed extremely scanty and defective. It ap¬ 
pears, from what he himself tells us, that “ a 
“ general discrepancy prevailed throughout the 
“ copies of the Septuagint; to be attributed, in 
“ the first place, to the inaccuracy of transcribers, 
“ secondly, to the audacious and false emenda- 
“ tions of those, who had undertaken to correct 
“ the Holy Scriptures, and, thirdly, to the arbi- 
“ trary proceedings of such correctors, in adding 
“ to, or suppressing portions of the sacred text.”* 
This is plain, unequivocal language, coming from 
a man competent to decide on the fact; and it 
proves that, at a period so remote as the begin¬ 
ning of the third century, there did not exist a 
single correct, or uncorrupted copy of the Sep¬ 
tuagint. As all were equally vitiated, and as of 
course no preference could be given to any indi¬ 
vidual copy, the most effectual, as well as the 
most obvious mode of carrying into execution 
the design in which Origen had engaged was, at 
once, to have made a new translation from the 
original text. Such, however, was not the plan 
which he thought proper to pursue. Instead of 
doing this, he adopted a course, evidently the 
most injudicious and the worst calculated to 
produce the effect which he had in contemplation, 
of any that could have been devised even by a 
professed enemy of the cause of which he de¬ 
clared himself the champion. Instigated as he 

* y. > ‘ t : 

* Com. in Matt, i, p. 381. 

1 

M 




82 

% 

was to undertake the task, by a conviction of the 
manifold corruptions which had been introduced 
into the Septuagint, and of the gross errors 
which pervaded the versions of Aquila, Theodo- 
tion and Symmachus, he took these last as his 
guides, and under their avowed auspices com¬ 
menced his labours. This is so extraordinary a 
fact, that nothing short of the strongest evidence 
should induce our belief of it. That evidence, 
however, can be produced. It is Origen himself 
who speaks, and his words are demonstration. 
“ I have,” says he, “ by Divine assistance, 
“ fallen on a method of curing the discrepancies 
“ which occur in the copies of the Old Testa- 
“ ment (i. e. the Septuagint), namely, by employ - 
“ ing the other versions , as Criteria whereon to 
“ found my awn opinion ; for, forming from these 
“ versions a judgment of what, from the dis- 
“ cordances among the copies, appeared doubt- 
“ ful in the Septuagint, I have retained such parts 
“ of it as accorded with them”* 

We have now to see what use he made of these 
precious materials, keeping in mind his own po¬ 
sitive declaration, that on the authority of the 
versions of Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus, 
and of those alone, were his corrections of the 
vitiated text of the Septuagint to be made. 

He began with dividing his pages, in the way ■ 
since adopted in our Polyglots, into Four Co¬ 
lumns. The Second of these contained Aquila’s 
version; the Third that of Symmachus; the 

* Com. in Matt, i, p. 381. 


83 


Fourth that of Theodotion; and in the First was 
placed the Septuagint version, not as it originally 
stood, or even as it appeared in any of the then 
existing copies, but as Origen himself, according 
to his newly invented mode, had thought proper 
to modify and alter it on the authority of the 
three other translations, with a manifest partia¬ 
lity, however, towards that of Theodotion, on 
whom, for some reason which cannot now be 
ascertained, he appears in all doubtful cases 
more especially to have relied. This predilection 
in favour of one, of whom neither the reputation 
nor the version were considered as deserving of 
such a distinction, proved extremely distasteful 
to the leaders of the Christian Church, who 
could by no means approve of the Ebionitish or 
Unitarian doctrines which pervaded his work, 
and who accordingly made no scruple to record 
in pretty strong terms their disapprobation of it 
and of its author. I have already quoted a pas¬ 
sage from Jerome, in which he speaks of Theo¬ 
dotion as having been a Jew and a blasphemer; 
and he is hardly less indignant on the subject, 
when, giving an account of Origens proceedings, 
he says, “ Et certe Origenes non solum exempla 
“ composuit quatuor editionum, sed, quod ma- 
“ joris audaciae est, in editione Septuaginta 
“ Theodotionis editionem miscuit.”* And this 

* Praef. in Paralipom. 

(i And assuredly Origen not only composed a copy of four 
li editions, but, what was yet a more signal presumption, inter- 
a mingled with the Septuagint the edition of Theodotion.” 


84 


explains the cause of that strange coincidence, 
which has already been noticed, between the 
version of Theodotion and our existing copies of 
the Septuagint, in the translation of the 26th 
verse of the 9th chapter of Daniel, directly in de¬ 
fiance of the sacred text. There cannot be a 
stronger proof, than is afforded by this, of 
Origen’s ignorance and absolute incapacity for 
the execution of the work which he had under¬ 
taken. Had he understood the Bible, or read 
the treatises of the ancient fathers of the Church; 
had he been commonly conversant with the prin¬ 
ciples on which Christianity is founded, he must 
have known that, in the very first rank of them, 
stands this plain and unambiguous prophecy of 
the death of our blessed Redeemer, so literally 
and completely fulfilled at a period not much 
more than two centuries before he wrote. The 
only excuse, if indeed it can be regarded as an 
excuse, which can be made for him by his warm¬ 
est advocates, is in truth an aggravation of his 
offence. It is no other than that, when he en¬ 
gaged in the composition of the Tetrapla (for so 
is his work entitled) he was altogether ignorant of the 
Hebrew language l This is a circumstance hardly 
credible; but it is proved by the indisputable 
testimonies of Eusebius* and Jerome.f This 
material deficiency, soon becoming known, so 
affected the credit of his performance, that he 
found himself reduced to the unpleasant dilemma 
of either acknowledging his own ignorance, or of 
* Eccles. Hist. 1. 6, c. 16. f Catal. Script. Eccles. 


85 


giving up his friends Aquila, Theodotion and 
Symmachus. He gallantly preferred the former, 
and, with perhaps more zeal than discretion, re¬ 
commenced his labours, as a preliminary to which 
he put himself under the tuition of a Jew, from 
whom he took lessons of Hebrew.* Of the pro¬ 
gress which he made under his guidance we have 
no direct proof, though we may be enabled to 
form some judgment respecting it from his sub¬ 
sequent performances ; but, as he must have 
been upwards of fifty years of age when he en¬ 
tered upon this new course of study, to which, 
considering his various other avocations and the 
disputes and persecutions in which he was per¬ 
petually involved, he could by no means have 
given an uninterrupted application, one may 
venture to assert that he could not have gained a 
very critical knowledge of the language, so as 
either justly to appreciate the merits or demerits 
of other translations, or to make a very correct 
one himself. Be this however as it may, it is 
certain that he deemed himself competent to re¬ 
commence his task, and that he finished and pub¬ 
lished it, under the title of the Hexapla, about 
the year 250. It does not appear to have at¬ 
tracted any immediate notice, or that even a single 
copy of it was taken. All we know is, that it was 
deposited by himself, in the library of the church 
of CBesarea in Palestine,! where it lay in obscurity, 

* Catal. Script. Eccles. 

f Hieron. in Psalm. Sec.—Idem, in Comm, in Epist. Sec. ad 
Tit. c. 3. 


86 


unread and neglected, for nearly half a century. 
In that obscurity let us for a while leave it, and 
take a short view of what it contained. 

The principle on which it was framed was, 
with some variations, the same as that on which 
Origen had proceeded in the composition of his 
Tetrapla. Instead of having Four Columns, he 
now divided his page into Six. In the first of 
these stood the Hebrew text; in the second, the 
same text in Greek characters; in the third, the 
version of Aquila; in the fourth, the version of 
Symmachus; in the fifth, the Septuagint version, 
and, in the sixth, the version of Theodotion. Of 
the Hebrew text, and the versions of Aquila, 
Symmachus and Theodotion, he professed to 
give accurate transcripts; but, with respect to 
the Septuagint, he adopted precisely the same 
course as that which he had pursued in his Te¬ 
trapla, arbitrarily altering and modifying it, 
transposing some passages, expunging others, 
and liberally introducing, throughout the whole, 
extracts from Aquila, Symmachus and Theodo- 
tion, still preserving his partiality towards the 
latter.* In order, however, as he himself tells 
us,f to prevent confusion in the text of the Sep¬ 
tuagint, he thought proper to distinguish the 
variations which he thus introduced by certain 
marks or symbols; prefixing what he called an 
Obeliscos, or a small horizontal line, to such 

parts of the text, as in his judgment were redun- 

' 

✓ 

* Hieron. in Prol. ad Gen. et alibi, f Comm, in Matt, i, 381. 


87 


\ s 

dant, and therefore proper to be expunged, and 
pointing out by an Asterisk such passages as he 
had supplied from the versions in his other 
columns; all this, however, without altering or 
meddling with the text of the Septuagint in the 
original state of corruption in which he found it, 
thickly studded indeed with a multitude of varia¬ 
tions and interpolations, from the contamination 
of which he insisted it was securely fenced by 
the interposition of his symbols. A single glance 
at such an arrangement must satisfy us, that, 
nothing could be more clumsy in its contrivance, 
or more likely to perplex the subject which it 
professed to render clear. The insertion of so 
many discordant passages, guarded as they might 
be by their Obelisks and Asterisks, must have 
rendered it nearly unintelligible; but the omission 
of even one of them must have confounded every 
thing in its neighbourhood. What then must 
have been the consequence of omitting them all, 
and of transcribing the mingled text as it stood 
in the Fifth Column ? A tolerable guess may be 
made as to the extent of such confusion, if we 
attend to the account given by the learned 
Masius, who assures us that the Book of Joshua 
alone contained no less than four hundred and 
sixty Asterisks, or interpolations from Aquila, 
Symmachus and Theodotion, and three hundred 
and eighty Obelisks, or portions of the Septua¬ 
gint deserving to be expunged. As the Book of 
Joshua does not make more than a thirtieth 
part of the Old Testament, and supposing, what 



88 


is most likely, that it did not contain more than 
its due proportion of symbols, it will follow that 
altogether there must have been 13,800 Asterisks 
and 11,400 Obelisks, intermingled with the 
already corrupted text, and by no means dis¬ 
tinguishable, or separable from it. And this 
confusion actually did take place. Transcripts 
after transcripts were made from Origen’s ori¬ 
ginal copy, some with more of those symbols, 
some with fewer, some without any; exhibiting 
every degree and variety of error, contradiction 
and misrepresentation; whence impiety might 
supply herself with weapons to be wielded 
against the doctrines of our holy religion, and 
vent her blasphemies under the veil of heavenly 
inspiration. 

In order to be enabled to form a more definite 
idea of the extent to which this mischief was 
carried, we must revert to the original copy of 
the Hexapla, which we left obscurely reposing 
in the library at Caesarea. In that tranquil re¬ 
tirement it remained till the end of the third 
century, when the first transcription of it was 
made by Eusebius and Pamphilus,* who com¬ 
municated it to the churches of Palestine, whence 
it spread, and grew into general use through all 
the country, from Antioch to Egypt. Whether 
these persons, or Jerome, who many years after¬ 
wards followed their example, made copies of 
the whole of the Six Columns, or contented 


* Hieron. in Prsefat. ad Paralip. 


89 


themselves with merely transcribing the Sep- 
tuagint Version contained in the Fifth, must now 
be a matter of conjecture, as there is no evidence 
to guide us; but it is perfectly certain that, if 
they did copy the whole, such copies have been 
long lost, and that neither they, nor the original 
work of Origen itself, have been in existence 
since the middle of the Seventh Century, when, 
in consequence of the irruptions of the Saracens, 
they were destroyed: so that now no more of 
the Hexapla remains, than the sophisticated Sep- 
tuagint, and a number of fragments of the Third, 
Fourth, and Sixth columns, which have been col¬ 
lected by Flaminius Nobilius, Drusius and 
Montfaucon. 

Innumerable, however, were the copies of this 
Hexapla edition of the Septuagint, which were 
dispersed throughout the already mentioned ex¬ 
tensive district. In these, at first, attention 

♦ 

appears to have been paid to the Asterisks and 
Obelisks used by Origen; * but this exactitude 
was soon laid aside; symbol after symbol was 
dropt, till at length no distinction remained, and 
the whole text was vitiated and jumbled together 
into an incongruous and undecypherable mass.f 
I will request the attention of the reader to the 
following extract from the author just quoted, 
who is well known as the Editor of a portion of 
the famous Alexandrian Manuscript of the Sep- 

# . >■ f «. . 

* Hieron. Praef Comm, in Dan. 

f Grab, de Vitiis 70 Interp. p. 108.—Idem Prolog, Oc- 
tach. c. 2, § 9. 

N 


90 


tuagint. This, it is universally agreed, is imme¬ 
diately derived from the Hexaplar edition,* and 
is considered, by our most celebrated biblical 
critics, as the most ancient MS. of the Sep- 
tuagint in existence. It is supposed to be 
upwards of 1400 years old, and of course may 
be considered as a good sample of the state in 
which the Septuagint then stood. What that 
state was will appear from the extract from 
Grabius’s work. “ Obelos aliquando omissos, ut 
“ honori tuu c E GJopwcovla consuleretur.—Negligen- 
“ tiores in Asteriscis apponendis fuisse librarios, 
“ non solum ex MSS. quibusdam libris, quibus 
“ modo utimur, clare patet; dum in iis sive 
“ omnia, sive plura , quse ab Origene addita esse 
“ aliorum librorum aut patrum auctoritate con- 
“ stat, sine Asteriscis leguntur; sed et Hierony- 
“ mus jam olim hac de re conquestus est, ita ad 
“ Suniam et Fretellum scribens : ‘ Hinc apud vos, 
“ et apud plerosque error exoritur, quod scrip- 
“ torum negligentia Yirgulis et Asteriscis sub- 
“ tractis, distinctio universa confunditur.’”f 

* Grab. Epist. ad Mill. p. 40. 

+ “ To preserve the credit of the Septuagint, the Obelisks 
“ were sometimes omitted.—It evidently appears that the 
“ copyists were very negligent in .placing the Asterisks, not 
“ only from certain existing MSS., in which all , or most of 
“ the additions, known to have been made by Origen on the 
“ authority of other books, or of the fathers, are now read 
“ without Asterisks; but Jerome formerly complained of this, 
“ thus writing to Sunias and Fretellus: ‘ Hence errors have 
“ arisen among you, and among many others, since, the Obe- 
** and Asterisks having been omitted through the negli- 
“ gence of transcribers, every distinction is confounded !’” 


91 


How justly this censure was passed by both of 
these great authorities may easily be proved. 
For this purpose, let us collate a passage to be 
found in the Alexandrian MS. with the corre¬ 
sponding passage taken from the no less cele¬ 
brated Vatican MS., on which our present 
printed editions of the Septuagint are founded ; 
at the same time collating them both with a 
literal version of the Hebrew Original, of which 
they purport to be correct and faithful transla¬ 
tions. This is the true test, by which may be 
tried the fidelity of either version, and their 
mutual correspondence; points of no mean im¬ 
portance in such a discussion as that in which 
we are at present engaged, as on the correctness 
of the Vatican MS. (as will hereafter be shewn) 
the authority of our own Received Version 
mainly depends. The passage in question is 
taken from the 5th Chapter of the Book of 
Judges. 


Literal Translation. 


2.—For defending the weak¬ 
nesses of Israel, when the 
people willingly offered them¬ 
selves, bless ye Jehovah. 


10 —Riders on white asses, 
sitters in judgment, who pro¬ 
ceed in the wav. 

T 

. • V ' x 


11.—From the noise of the 
archers, among the drawers. 


16.—Why abodest thou a- 
mong the sheep-folds to hear 
the bleatings of the flocks? 
At the rivers of Reuben great 
were the searchings of heart. 


21.—The river Kishon swept 
them: ancient river, river Ki¬ 
shon. 


26.—She smote the head of 
Sisera; thus she wounded and 
pierced his temples. 


27.—At her feet he bowed, 
he fell, he lay; at her feet he 
bowed, he perished; thus when 
he bowed, there he fell de¬ 
stroyed. 









93 


Vatican MS. 


Alexandrian MS. 


2.— AttexxX va'rrdxxXvixux 

*y ’lapxyX lv rw Ix.xatxcrQwa.i Aaov, 
ivXoysfls K vptov. 


2.—’ev Tui apj'xcr9xi xp^'/iytss 
h I TpxyX lv zzpoxipsasi AaS, It>Ao- 
7£i% TOV K vptov. 


10. ’Et U^E^^KoIeS iTTl 0 VS 

*• - * *, .. 

Xeiocs (XEcrr)[xQplxq 9 xotQrifjLZvoi hri 
xp/lypitt, kxi 'vyopEvopiEvoi etti o^Ss 
(xvv&puv ?<P’ oSw. 


10.—’E 7 Ti^E^rj^olsq Itt! vTTo^u- 
ylwv—xxOripiEvot etti Xx[A.7rr,vuv f 

XXt ZJOpEVO[AEVOl £$’ O^W. 


11 •—’A/^yfilaQs otTTo ava- 

X.pUO[AEVWV XVX fAEUOV V$prvO[/.EWV. 


16.—El? ri Ikx9i<tov xvx[aeo-ov 
Tys l)tyo[Alxq T« axtiaxi crcptaydn 
xysXuv ; si? ^ipcpEagiq 'PaC^y \ae - 
yxXoi Ef’ETxo’p/.oi nation;. 


21. —XsifAxppas Kiauv l^lxvpEv 

dvltit, ^EifAxppaq oop^xiuv, yEi^ap- 
ptsq K/(jft5y. 


26 .—/SrnXcoxs xeQxXviv avlx, 
xxi htxTa^E) (hriXuas xporxtyov 
avrS. 


27 *—AvXfJLE aov ruv zjo^uv ay- 
155? Xx1eXvXi<t9w * ETTECTE X«I hiOl(AY)- 
Qv) xvx [aectov Tuv 'Gjohwv uvlrts j xa- 
IxkXiQeis i vests, xx9ws xolIek Xk9v) 

IXEt ETTECEV 1 % 0 $EvQe'iS. 


11.— ^9e^^xc9e Qaniriv ocvxxpuo- 

(ASVUV XVX {/.EUOV EVtppXlVO^EVUV. 

A 


16 —'ivxvli (xot y.x9v)<jxi xvx 
pLEaov ruv MuaQxSxi/A, r« \iax- 

XiSEkV <7VpUT[AUq l^syEpovruv ; T« 

^ie^9e7v sis rx r« PaC^y, (xsyuXoi 
E^uxyyiacpKo) xapVixq. 


21. —Xstixoippsq Keutuv eI'eQx- 
Xev ocvlusy %Ei[Aclppti<; Kx^vo’ei/Xj 

^ElfXXppESq KEKJUV. 


26. ' AVETpl^EV 7V)V XE(pxXv)V 

xvlS, xxi o-vve9Xuctev xxi ^ivXxctev 
T r>v yva.9ov xvlS. 


27.— "* Avx\ae<tov tuv vso^uv xu- 
%s avvxx/x-^/xq £7 tectev, Ixo/p?6>j 
(xtlx^v zyo^Zv xvIyis’ lv Z ekx[a^ev, 
Ixei ETIE&SV TxXx'nTUpoq. 
















94 


The discordance between these two celebrated 
Manuscripts is too obvious, not to be perceived 
at a single glance; yet they both purport to be, 
not only correct translations from the Hebrew, 
but faithful transcripts of the original Septua- 
gint. This is the only ground on which they can 
stand. Should that fail them, they, all copies of 
them, and all translations founded upon them, 
can no longer be regarded as infallible authori¬ 
ties, or indeed as any authorities at all. Now 
the very fact of such a discordance existing be¬ 
tween them, renders such a supposition impos¬ 
sible. It is evident, that they cannot both be 
faithful transcripts of one original. The ques¬ 
tions then will be, to which of them may that 
claim be allowed, and of what originals were 
they transcripts ? There is no direct standard of 
authenticity to which we can resort, there not 
being in existence any copy, or any thing pur¬ 
porting to be a copy of the original Septuagint, 
of a date more ancient than those which they are 
supposed to bear. We must therefore look for 
the explication of this aenigma to Origens 
Hexapla; which will enable us to ascertain that 
both of these MSS. have a right to call them¬ 
selves transcripts of that edition of the Septua¬ 
gint, and that the discrepancies between them 
are merely owing to the greater or lesser omis¬ 
sion of the Obelisks and Asterisks, by which was 
occasioned a greater or lesser admixture of in¬ 
terpolated passages. This may easily be proved 
by a reference to the fragments of the Versions 


95 


of Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus already 
mentioned, which will put the matter beyond all 
doubt. That it should be so placed is a point 
of the most serious importance, as, on the au¬ 
thenticity of what purports to be a faithful inter¬ 
pretation of the sacred text, depend our duties 
and interests in this world, and our hopes of a 
blessed immortality in that which is to come. 

In the Vatican copy of this passage, at verse 2, 
“ *A 7 r£x.oi\v(p$v) cnroxoiXvftfjt.a' is taken from Aquila, 
and ’Ev hx<ria<rbrivou \ccov” from Symmachus; 
and, at verse 21, “ ’EgsVu/w” is taken from Theo¬ 
dotion. 

On the Alexandrian copy, the following obser¬ 
vations may be made: 

Verse 2—The whole from Theodotion. 

—- 10— “ c Tt Togvyluv” from the same. 

- 11 .—“ from Symmachus. 

- 1G —“ *h)Civ\i | u.oi YiccQn<rou dvufAtrou from 

Aquila. 

“ Tuv Mto<r$cc9xlffi” from Theodotion. 

( * T« c hsxfttiv Etg t& T8 'Pz&jv from the 
same. 

“ ’E t;Krx,vMrpoi xuptfots” from Sym¬ 
machus. 

_ 21—“ K afaahp’ from Theodotion. 

*_ 26—“ EvveQx qlgev xoci $iv\Xa,(7£v rvv yvctQov avlx 

from Theodotion. 

_ 27 —“ S vyytu^ocg eWsv” from Aquila. 

u Ev w lytoc^^Jiv J from Theodotion. 

Here, in Seven Verses, there are no less than 
Fourten Interpolations. As this is a neutral 












96 


passage, not involving any contested point,, it 
maybe considered as a fair specimen of the dread¬ 
fully corrupted state to which the Septuagint 
had been reduced by the concurring causes 
which have been enumerated—An original trans¬ 
lation, made by persons of whose qualifications 
and even names we are ignorant, at times, and 
in places of which we have no information, and 
of which there is no existing copy—A mass of 
corruptions, designedly introduced into it by the 
Jews, for the purpose of impugning the doctrines 
of Christianity—Those corruptions infinitely 
multiplied, in the first instance, by the venal 
labours of Jewish proselytes and Ebionitish 
heretics, and, finally, by the injudicious pro¬ 
ceedings of Origen, and by the inextricable con¬ 
fusion consequent upon them through the inac¬ 
curacies and errors of his transcribers. 

With this brief recapitulation of what has, I 
trust, been sufficiently proved, let us now con¬ 
trast the confident assertions made by the Quar¬ 
terly Critic. 

“ No reasonable doubt can exist, that the 
“ authors of the Septuagint Version possessed 
“ the means of making it most faithful to the 
“ original. There is not a semblance of argu- 
“ ment to excite the least suspicion, that the 
“ version now called the Septuagint is mate- 
“ rially different from that which has always 
“ borne this name. We speak the concurring 
“ sentiments of all learned men, when we affirm 
“ that, taken as a whole, it has come down to us 


97 


“ in a state of great purity and perfection; and 
“ we have the highest possible authority for 
“ deeming it to convey, in the main, a faithful 
“ record of the true sense of the Hebrew Scrip- 
“ tures.” 

Such being the state of the argument between 
us, the next step must be to examine the con¬ 
clusion which our Critic draws from his pre¬ 
mises—namely, that the fidelity and correctness 
of the existing translations are such, as to render 
any attempt to make them better in the highest 
degree presumptuous and unwarrantable. The 
evidence by which this conclusion is attempted 
to be supported is already before the reader, 
and, in so far as it relates to the Septuagint, 
its insufficiency has, I trust, been demonstrated. 

I will therefore now proceed to the consideration 
of those other Versions which have been mediately 
or immediately derived from it, including our 
own Received Version, respecting which our 
Critic confidently asserts, first, generally, that 
“ all the principal translations have, beyond 
“ question, been made directly from the He- 
“brew;”* and again, more particularly, that 
“ Our authorized Version was made, not from 
“ any translation ancient or modern, but directly 
“ from the original Hebrew.’t 0* 1 the truth of 
these propositions he rests his case, and on the 
denial of them I am contented to rest mine. 

We have seen that the first transcript of 

* Quart. Rev. No. 37? p* 256. f lb. p. 258. 

O 


98 


Origen s interpolated edition of the Septuagint 
was made, about the close of the Third cen¬ 
tury, by Pamphilus and Eusebius, and that, 
under the name of the Palestine Edition, it was 
generally received by the Christian Church from 
Antioch to the borders of Egypt. Some time 
after this, another transcript of it was made by 
Lucian, a presbyter of the church of Antioch, 
which was received by the churches from that 
place to Constantinople; * and, about the end of 
the Fourth century, Hesychius, a learned gram¬ 
marian of Alexandria, made a third transcript, 
which was received by all the churches of 

Egypt-t 

If our Critic should happen to be acquainted 
with either of these personages, he will no doubt 
be disposed to controvert what I have said of 
them. And in so doing he will have on his side 
a grave authority, that of Dr. Owen, who, in his 
“ Enquiry into the present state of the Sep- 
“ tuagint Version,” J pronounces it a great mis¬ 
take to assert that these three editions were all 
taken from the Hexapla; for that Lucian com¬ 
piled his from various copies of the K ouv, or 
common Greek Version, which he collated and 
corrected by the Hebrew text, and that Hesy¬ 
chius formed his edition, on the same plan, from 
copies collected in Egypt. 

This is a point of greater importance than, at 
the first glance, it may appear to be; as upon it 

* Hieron. in Praefat. ad Paralip. f Ibid. % P. 149. 


t 


99 


will depend the degree of credit to be given to 
the existing Septuagint itself, as well as to the 
other versions of the Old Testament, more or 
less immediately derived from it. It is merely a 
question of fact; and, therefore, however high 
Dr. Owen’s reputation as a divine and scholar 
may stand, the authority to be conceded to his 
opinion must depend altogether on the testimony 
by which it is supported. Let us inquire what 
that testimony may be. 

In the case of Lucian, the Doctor brings for¬ 
ward Dr. Cave, from whose “ Historia Literaria” 
he quotes the following passage: “ Lucianus, he* 
“ braice doctus, varias Veteris Instrument ver- 
“ siones Grsecas inter se contulit, crebrasque, 
“ quae ex librariorum incuria irrepserant, labes 
“ vetustiorum et probatse fidei codicum ope sus- 
“ tulit, et ad primaevam puritatem isto modo resti- 
“ tutam tuv interpretationem accurate 

“ magis adhuc ex Hebraicis exemplaribus emen- 
“ davit.” * If one were inclined to dispute the 
matter, one might ask how Dr. Cave was able to 
collect so many minute particulars, respecting an 
obscure individual, and at a distance of more 
than fifteen centuries. This however is a 
point hardly worth discussing; for what does his 


* “ Lucian, a Hebrew scholar, collated various Greek ver- 
“ sions of the. Old Testament, and, by the aid of ancient MSS. 
“ of approved fidelity, cleared away many mistakes which had 
“ crept in through the carelessness of copyists, and corrected 
“ still more accurately from the Hebrew copies the Septuagint 
“ version thus restored to its primitive purity.” 


100 


authority amount to ?—Simply to this: That Lu¬ 
cian collated various Greek versions; that, by 
the aid of old MSS., of approved fidelity and 
correctness, he removed the errors which had 
been introduced by former copyists, and that 
thus having in a great degree restored the purity 
of the Septuagint version, he still more accurately 
corrected it from the Hebrew copies. All this 
may be true, and yet not amount to any thing 
like a proof that Lucian did not avail himself of 
Origen’s labours. What copies were those, which 
Dr. Cave would have us believe Lucian con¬ 
sulted ? It has been shewn by the testi¬ 
mony of Origen himself, that the text of all the 
copies existing in his time had been so vitiated, 
as to render them altogether undeserving of 
credit. What remained of these, half a century 
afterwards, could have been no better than he 
had found them; and we know what sort of 
things were the versions of the Jewish Aquila 
and the Ebionitish Theodotion and Symmachus. 
Which of all these deserve to be termed “ pro- 
“ batse fidei,” of approved fidelity and correct¬ 
ness ? How could the purity of the original Septua¬ 
gint (of which, it must be recollected, not a single 
unvitiated copy was inexistence even when Origen 
commenced his work) have been ascertained or 
restored by a reference to such authorities ? It is 
surprising that such writers as Dr. Cave and Dr. 
Owen should have overlooked considerations like 
these, which so directly militate against the 
theory which they attempt to establish. 




101 


The source, however, from which Lucian de¬ 
rived his edition is comparatively of small im¬ 
portance, as our own editions of the Septuagint 
are unconnected with it; but the case is very 
different with respect to the edition of Hesychius, 
from which they are all immediately derived. As 
Dr. Owen grounded his former assertion solely 
on the authority of Dr. Cave, so, in the pre¬ 
sent instance, he supports his assertion respect¬ 
ing Hesychius by a single quotation from Gra- 
bius. “ Sole clarius elucet, quod Hesychio haud 
“ animus fuerit dictam interpretationem (sc. Sep- 
“ tuaginta-viralem) a mendis, quse injuria tem- 
“ porum sive hominum irrepserant, repurgare, 
“ ac pristinse puritati atque integritati restituere; 
“ sed hanc, ubi ab Hebraeo textu prout ipse eum 
“ tunc legebat discrepare videbatur, eidem qua- 
“ cunque ratione adaptare.”* Now what are 
these propositions, to the brilliancy of which that 
of the sun itself must yield? First, that Hesy¬ 
chius did not attempt to purge the Septuagint 
version from the corruptions which had fallen 
into it; and secondly, that he did attempt to 
adapt to the Hebrew text such passages of the 
Septuagint as did not accord with it. How the 
latter could be done without doing the former 

0 . * . „ i 

* “ It is clearer than the sun, that it never was the intention 
“ of Hesychius to purge the Septuagint of the errors which had 
i( crept into it by the injury of time or man, and to restoie it to 
“ its original purity and integrity, but merely, by every possible 
“ means, to adapt it to the Hebrew text, wherever, as he then 
“ read it, it appeared to differ from it.” 


102 


also it will probably be difficult to explain; but 
certainly neither the one nor the other, nor both 
of them together, afford the shadow of a proof 
that Hesychius did not take his edition from the 
Hexapla. 

The question, however, ought not to be allowed 
to rest on negative evidence, if positive evidence 
can be adduced; and the result of our inquiry 
as to the authenticity of our copies of the Sep- 
tuagint so materially depends on its being clearly 
ascertained, that no pains should be spared in its 
investigation. It happens fortunately that no 
great pains are required; for we have only to 
look a little farther into the same authorities, to 
be enabled to discover that Dr. Owen and Gra- 
bius themselves, notwithstanding what they have 
thought proper to say to the contrary, are per¬ 
fectly satisfied that, in point of fact, Hesychius 
did take his edition from the Hexapla. 

Dr. Owen proves, on the authority of Jerome, 
that Hesychius was the author of the Alexan¬ 
drian and Egyptian Septuagint; and this ad¬ 
mission directly leads us to the further proof, 
that his edition was taken from the Hexapla-. 
This will appear from a brief recapitulation of 
the different editions, through which the Sep¬ 
tuagint version has passed since his time. 

There are only three principal editions, from 
which all others extant have been printed. 

1. The Complutensian , published in 1515, under 
the auspices of Cardinal Ximenes, compiled from 
various MSS., and not particularly adhering to 


103 


any one; from which have been taken the Poly¬ 
glots of Antwerp and Paris, and Commelin’s edi¬ 
tion of the Septuagint.* 

2. —The Aldine edition of 1518, a compilation 
of the same nature, from which various German 
editions have been taken.f 

3. —The Roman, or Vatican edition of Sixtus 
5th, printed from the Vatican MS., and published 
in 1587; from which have been printed Walton s 
Polyglot, and our other English editions of the 
Septuagint. J 

Such being the descent of these editions, no¬ 
thing more is wanting than a satisfactory evi¬ 
dence of the identity of the Vatican MS. and the 
transcript made from the Hexapla by Hesychius. 
And the proof of this is afforded to us by Grabius 
himself, in the following clear and unequivocal 
terms: “ Cum igitur Alexandrini prsesules seculi 
“ quarti et quinti post Christum natum, iique 
“ soli, varios Libri Judicum textus juxta Romani 
“ codicis tenorem allegaverint, atque illos Hesy- 
“ chii editionem sive revisionem Septuaginta in- 
“ terpretum amplexos esse constet, nullus dubi- 
“ tandi locus relictus videtur , quin hujus exemplar 
“ dictus codex exhibeat” || 

* Hodius, 1. 4, c. 3.—Grab. Proleg. c. 3.—Usser. Synt. c. 8. 
—Walton. Prol. c. 9. 
f Ibid. f Ibid. 
j| Grab. Epist. ad Mill. p. 45. 

“ As therefore the Alexandrian rulers of the fourth and fifth 
a centuries after the birth of Christ, and they alone, cited 
“ various texts of the Book of Judges which agreed with the 


104 






On the authority of Grabius, therefore, as well 
as on that of Dr. Owen, the identity of the 
Vatican MS., from which all our editions of the 
Septuagint are directly taken, and that of the 
edition of Hesychius, is completely established. 

It now remains for me to shew how far my 
opponent is warranted so confidently to assert, 
that “ Jerome’s Version was not made from the 
“ Greek Translations, but from the original 
“ Hebrew.”* In this assertion I trust I shall be 
able to prove he is as much mistaken, as he was 
in all those which have already been discussed. 

It appears that, in the course of the first three 
centuries after Christ, some translations of the 
Holy Scriptures from the Greek in to Latin had 
been made. Of these we know no more, than 
that they probably were extremely incorrect; 
insomuch that Jerome not only conceived it to 
be his duty to attempt to make a new Latin 
version, but was strongly exhorted by Pope Da- 
masus to engage in so laudable an enterprise. 
He appears however to have been fully impressed 
with a sense of the dangers likely to attend on 
such an undertaking, and to have had before his 
eyes an alarming prospect of the rough treat¬ 
ment, which he was likely to meet with from 

“ tenor of the Roman (i. e. the Vatican) MS., and as it was 
“ certain that such texts coincided with Hesychius’s edition 
“ 01 * revision of the Septuagint, there appears to he no ground for 
“ doubting that the Roman MS . exhibits a copy of Hesy- 
“ chius’s Edition .” 

* Quart. Rev. No. 37, p. 256. 


i 


105 

contemporaneous critics; and these apprehen¬ 
sions he thus feelingly expresses in an address to 
the Pope : “ It is a pious labour, but it is also 
“ a dangerous presumption, that he, who should 
“ be judged by every one, should take on him- 
“ self to be every one’s judge, to change the lan- 
“ guage of the ancients, and bring back the 
“ world, already grown old, to the first lessons 
“ of children. For what person soever, whether 
“ ignorant or knowing, who takes up this book, 
“ and finds it differ from that which he learned, 
“ will not instantly exclaim that I am guilty of 
“ forgery and sacrilege, in having dared to add 
“ to the sacred writings, and to change and cor- 
“ rect them? ”*In despite of these obstacles, 
however, he persevered in the execution of the 
task which he had undertaken, and his version, 
now generally known by the name of the Vul¬ 
gate, made its appearance. Whether it was 
such a version as our Critic pronounces it to be, 
may not only be disputed, but disproved. 

The Critic asserts that Jerome was well 
qualified for such an undertaking, by his eminent 
knowledge and long practice of the Hebrew lan¬ 
guage, and that his version was not a translation, 
or a revision of a translation from the Greek, but 
a new translation from the Hebrew. These posi¬ 
tions he supports on the authority of Walton; in 
opposition to whom, so far as relates to Jerome’s 
qualification as a Hebrew scholar, I beg leave to 


* Hieron. in Praef. Evan, ad Damas. 

P 


10G 


produce Le Clerc, a writer of at least equal au¬ 
thority, whose opinion on this subject may be 
considered deserving of particular attention, as 
it is contained in his “ Questiones Hieronymianse,” 

which is expressly a critique on the Benedictine 

* 

edition of Jerome s works. He affirms, on the 
evidence of those works themselves, that, though 
Jerome undertook to translate many things out 
of Greek and Hebrew, he was not accurately 
skilled in either of those languages. 

But the question does not rest on this point; 
the fact at issue between us is, was it from the 
original Hebrew, or from the Septuagint, that 
Jerome’s version was made? I will produce two 
witnesses, whose testimony even our Critic him¬ 
self will hardly venture to dispute, to prove that 
it was not a new version from the Hebrew ori¬ 
ginal, but that it was little more than a trans¬ 
lation, and in many instances a very close one, 
from the Septuagint, or, in other words, from 
Origen’s Hexapla. 

My first witness is Jerome himself. It ap¬ 
pears, from his address to Pope Damasus, that 
he had made use of some incautious expressions, 
such as “ changing the language of the ancients,” 
“ bringing back the world, now grown old, to 
“ the first lessons of children,” and of “ his work 
“ differing from what his readers had already 
“ learned,” which had raised a great clamour 
against him on the part of those who, in the style 
of our Quarterly Critic, strongly opposed any 
attempt whatsoever to make a new translation of 


107 


the Old Testament, and asserted that it was im¬ 
possible to make a version more perfect than that 
of the Septuagint.* This clamour, far from being 
appeased by the publication of the work, became 
more violent, and Jerome was accused, not only 
of having scandalized the whole church by at¬ 
tempting to introduce Judaism into it, but of 
having entirely changed the scriptures, and 
having in his translation conducted himself as 
a Jew and an Apostate.f These were heavy 
charges; and, as Jerome was of an irascible tem¬ 
perament, he replied to them in terms no less 
vehement: “ I entertain,” says he, “ no intention 
“ to lessen the authority of the Septuagint, which I 
“ acknowledge to he divine. In every book of the 
“ scriptures, I am compelled to answer the ca- 
“ lumnies of my adversaries, who accuse my 
“ version of being a censure on the Septuagint. 
“Be it known to my dogs, that I have under- 
“ taken this work for the instruction of the peo- 

\ 

“ pie, without any design of blaming the ancient 
“ version. This work is indeed dangerous, and 
“ exposed to the barkings of my calumniators, 

“ who alledge that I introduce my translation, in- 
“ stead of the ancient, with no other design than 
“ to blame the Septuagint. How do I contemn 
“ the ancient translators? In no way: but I 
“ labour in the house of the Lord, treading in the 
“footsteps of those who went before me”\ 

* August. Epist-. ad Hieron. 10, 19, 86. 

f Rufin. Invect. 1. 2. 

J Praefat. in Job. Prol. Galeat. 


I 


108 


Between Jerome’s own authority and that of 
our learned Critic, I leave the impartial reader 
to decide. Were the question in debate of less 
importance, it might be allowed to rest on such 
conclusive evidence; but as it is necessary that 
not a doubt on the subject should be suffered to 
remain, I beg leave to bring forward my second 
witness, which is no other than Jerome’s own 
version , an inspection of which will prove that 
he acted on the principles which he professed, 
and that his version, instead of being a new 
translation from the original Hebrew, is little 
more than a literal traduction of the Greek Sep- 
tuagint. The following table contains a collation 
of sundry portions of Jerome's version, with the 
corresponding passages of the Septuagint, and 
of the Hebrew text literally translated; which 4 
will shew, from their accordance with the former, 
and their disagreement with the latter, from 
which source they must have been derived. To 
the three columns containing these extracts I 
propose, for the sake of avoiding unnecessary 
repetitions, to add a fourth, containing our own 
Received Version of the several passages, to 
which I shall shortly have occasion to call the 
attention of the reader. 








\ir 'fti ■» 




. 



< 
















- - v v 


■ ; 








4 











, 











\ 


Literal Translation from the Hebrew. 


Septuagint Version. 


Gen. xi. 7.—Come, we will 
descend, and there confound 
their doctrines: for a man 
shall not hearken to the speech 
of his neighbour. 

• 4 

Gen. xix. 26.—But his w r ife 
looked after his posterity, and 
she became a memorial of de¬ 
struction. 


Gen. vi. 6. —Jehovah was 
satisfied that He had made 
man on the earth, though he 
idolized himself in his heart. 


GEN.vi. 14.—Makefor thee 
an ark of the wood of Gopher; 
rooms thou shalt make in the 
ark ; for thou shalt expiate in 
it; even a house, also with an 
outer (sc. room) for atone¬ 
ment. 


Gen. xxxvii. 3. —Now Israel 
preferred Joseph before any 
of his sons, for a successor of 
elders after him : and he made 
for him a garment of suppli¬ 
cation. 


Exod. iv. 21.—Do them 
before the face of Pharaoh, 
and I will prevail with his 
heart, or he will not send forth 
the people. 


A ivlst y.a\ kxIxCxvIes avvytupiv 
ocvluv hit? tt)v yXo/aeotv, iva p.’n 
ccKovaueriv ekufIos tvv (pcotyv rov 
zjX’naioZ. 


Ka! ethCAe^ev r> yvvvi ocvlov sis 
too o? nav, xki eysvelo altiXti olXos. 


’EfedypvQi) o Geos olt hro/vo'*) rov 
oiv^puiroi h Ti tvis yr><;' kxi S/e- 
vov)Qv). 


Tlolviaov tsv asxvi w x/Ccolov ek 
Z vXuv Tslpayuvuv * vocro’/ag zjoivxjeki 
rriv m£cJ1ov • Kott cocr<Qa,x\ucrEi<; octlrjv 
e<tuQev x.oci e^wOev tv) uatyclxlv. 


’lax&C Se vtyd'irx Toy \w<7V)<p 
zjxpoc zsotHas rovs vlas ai'lS, oh vios 
ynpous wv av\u> • ETrowre oe uvlty 
xflwva. ziqixIXov. 


TloiyaEis xv\x tvxvltov <Pxpxu' 
tyu Si o’x.Xvjpvvco tyiv x.ap'SLx v acClts, 
hou ov (/.v) t%CL7focr\klXv) rov Aaov. 
















Ill 


Jerome's Version. 


Venite igitur, descendamus, 
et confundamus ibi linguam 
eorum, ut non audiat unus- 
quisque vocem proximi sui. 


Respiciensque uxor ejus 
post se, versa est in statuam 
salis. 


Penituit eura quod homi- 
nem fecisset in terra, et tactus 
dolore cordis intrinsicus. 


Fac tibi arcam de lignis le- 
vigratis : mansiunculas in area 

O 7 

facies; et bitumine linies in- 
trinsecus et extrinsecus. 


Israel autem diligebat Jo¬ 
seph super omnes filios, eo 
quod in senectute genuisset 
eum, fecitque ei tunicam po- 
lymitam. 


Omnia ostenta facias coram 
Pharaone: Fgo indurabo cor 
ejus, et non demittet popu- 
lum. 


Received Version. 


Go to, let us go down, and 
there confound their language, 
that they may not understand 
one another’s speech. 


But his wife looked back 
from behind him, and became 
a pillar of salt. 


And it repented the Lord 
that He had made man on the 
earth, and it grieved him at 
his heart. 


Make thee an ark of Gopher 
wood; rooms shalt thou make 
in the ark, and shalt pitch it 
within and without with pitch. 


Now Israel loved Joseph 
more than all his children, be¬ 
cause he was the son of his 
old age: and he made him a 
coat of many colours. 


Do all these wonders before 
Pharaoh. But I will harden 
his heart, that he shall not let 
the people go. 


\ 
















Literal Translation from the Hebrew. 


Septuagint Version. 


Exod. vii. 1.—Jehovah said 
to Moses, Behold, I have made 
thee a supreme before Pha¬ 
raoh : now Aaron thy brother 
shall be thy interpreter. 

Exod. xiii. 15.—Jehovah 
slew every firstling of the 
land of Egypt; not the first 
born of maji, but the firstling 
of beasts. 

Exod. xxxi. 18.—Two ta¬ 
bles of the testimony, tables 
of stone, written by the di¬ 
rection of God, 

Exod. xxxiii. 23.—Then I 
will represent my power, and 
thou shalt prepare to follow 
me: before my face they shall 
not appear. 

Exod. iv. 24,25, 26.—Now 
it was on the journey, at the 
lodge, where Jehovah met 
him, whom he sought crying 
to him, 

That Zipporah had taken a 
knife, and she had cut the 
prepuce of her son, which she 
cast at his feet: then she 
said, Surely a bridegroom of 
consanguinity approacheth to 
me: 

For he had relaxed con¬ 
cerning the same. Thus she 
said, a bridegroom of consan¬ 
guinity, by circumcision. 


K xl tlxs K vgios zjpo; Muvaviv, 
Xiyuv, ’iSoy SsS&»ta <7E Q&ov &xpaw, 
xxi *A xpuv o aStX(£>os crov salxt aov 
zj poQvflyS' 


’Airexleivt zjxv zjpvloloxov tv yv 
'AtyviSly, cotto zjpoiol oxwv ayOpunw 
£«S zrpololoxcoy xh jv5v. 


A vo zjXxxxs Toy (Aaplvpiov, zj\x- 
xx<; XiQlvxi; ysypxp.p.tvx<; Ty SxxlJ Aw 
T« 0£«. 


Kxt xipsXu> r^v yzipx, xxi rolt 
tx on l aw pov • to St zjpoawnot 
(aov ovx otyQrtaSIxi aot . 


’Eyetsl o St tv t>? oSw tv Tv xx- 
IxXvfAxll avrnv%asv ccvly ayytXos 
Kvgiov * xxi ItyiTSi xvtov anoxluvxt, 

Kxt XxGStx EsnQwpx %],»?£ov, 
zsigitlefAS tviv axpoCvaltxv Toy vld 
av%s * xxi zrpoalneas tjpo<; rovs 
ZJodxs XVTOV, xxi Stntv, *Ealt) to 
xifxx TVS ZJipiT0(A7iq Toy ZJxt Sicy 

(AOV. 

K XI aTrijXfitv an xv\e, dtolt 
£ 17TSV, ’'Ealn To xJ(AX T?^ ZJlpllofATlS 

Toy ZJXlOtOV (AOV. 














Jerome's Version.. 


Dixitque dominus ad Moysen, 
Ecce, constitui te Deum Pha- 
raonis, et Aaron frater tuus 
erit propheta tuus. 

% / i. t > * 

Occidit Dominus omne pri- 
mogenitum in terra Egyptii, a 
primo-genito hominis usque ad 
primo-genitum jumentorum. 


Duas tabulas testimonii la- 
pideas, scriptas digito Dei. 


Tollamque manum meam, 
et videbis posteriora mea; 
faciem autem meam videre 
non poteris. 


Cumque esset in itinere, in 
diversorio occurrit ei Domi¬ 
nus, et volebat occidere eum. 

Tulit igitur Sephora acu- 
tissimam petram, et circum- 
cidit praeputium filii sui, teti- 
gitque pedes ejus, etait, Spon- 
sus sanguinis tu mihi es. 


Received Version . 


The Lord said unto Moses, 
See, I have made thee a God 
to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy 
brother shall be thy prophet. 


The Lord slew all the first¬ 
born in the land of Egypt, 
both the first-born of man and 
the first-born of beast. 


Two tables of testimony, 
tables of stone, written with 
the finger of God. 


And I will take away mine 
hand, and thou shalt see my 
back parts; but my face shall 
not be seen. 


And it came to pass by the 
way in the inn, that the Lord 
met him, and sought to kill 
him. 

Then Zipporah took a sharp 
stone, and cut off the foreskin 
of her son, and cast it at his 
feet, and said, Surely a bloody 
husband art thou to me. 


Et demisit eum postquam So she let him go ; then she 
dixerat, Sponsus sanguinum said, a bloody husband thou 

tu mihi es : ob circumcisi* art because of the circum- 

.. 


onem. 


cision. 














114 


Literal Translation from the Hebrew. 


Judges, xv. 19.-—God rent 
a cavity which was in Lehi, 
and water flowed therefrom. 

2 Kings, v. 18. —In this 
thing will Jehovah pardon thy 
servant ? When my lord came 
to the house of Rimmon to 
worship there, then he leaned 
on my hand, and I myself 
worshipped in the house of 
Rimmon. Since I myself wor¬ 
shipped in the house of Rim¬ 
mon, will Jehovah, I pray 
thee, pardon thy servant in 
this thing? 

Isaiah vi. 10. —The heart 
of this people was made gross, 
also his ears heavy, and his 
eyes were turned aside; lest 
he should see with his eyes, 
and hear with his ears, or his 
heart should understand, and 
return, and be healed. 


Jerem. iv. 10.—Then said 
I, Ah, Lord Jehovah! truly to 
desolation thou hast desolated 
this people, even to Jerusalem, 
for saying, Peace shall be 
among you*, but the sword 
reacheth to the soul. 


Septuagvit Version. 


’Eppyt-tv o ©eo? rov Xaxxoy rov 
sv tv arixylviy xxi et;v}hQev e| xvlS 

K xi \'ka,fft\oci K vpioq t« $ov\u 
aov ly r Z umtogivKiQx) rov xvpiov 
(MOV sU 'P poaxvvy<rxi 

\xxl xvlos iirxvxnxvrelat lari 
rys of [xov f xxi zjpoerxvyi<ru ly 
oixu *P£/^/xay it> rZ zrpoaxwuv xv- 
loti ly oixu *P xxi iXa-ersixt 
<$y K vpioq tZ ISovKu <xov Iv rw "Koyu 

TOVTU, 

0 


'EitxxvvQy yocg y xxphlx toZ 
XxoZ rovloV) xxi TOG wcrly Gxpiuq 
yxovxxv, xxi row? ixa/x- 

fj.vcrxv t fxrivols roi? o^GaX- 

lj.o7q , xxi TOiq ua\v xxovcruarty xxi 
rv xxpHloc avvwai xxi linape^/WT), 
xxi ixao\xxi avl&q. 


¥Lxi eTttix, r fl XsttoIx K vpis, oipol 
yv senrxluv yirxlyxxs roy Xaoy Tulov 
xxi Tyv 'ispsuaX^/A, Xiyuv, Eipyvy 
ealxt, xxi ioov yyxlo y y*xyxigx 
iojq rr)<; )yr\s avlcuif • 


*■ * . * r • > , i 

Amos. iii. 6. —Shall evil be E< lalxi xxxix Iv njotei yv Kv m 
in the city, and Jehovah hath puts ax Itto/Ve; 
not requited it? 















115 


Jerome's Va'sion. 


Aperuit Dominus molarem 
dentem in maxilla asini, et 
egressae sunt ex eo aquae. 

Hoc autem solum est de 
quo depreceris Dominum pro 
servo tuo: quando ingredietur 
dominus meus templum Rem- 
mon ut adoret, et illo inni- 
tente super manum meam, si 
adoravero in templo Remmon, 
adorante eo in eodem loco, ut 
ignoscat mihi Dominus servo 
tuo pro hac re. 


Excaeca cor populi hujus, et 
aures ejus aggrava, et oculos 
ejus claude; ne forte videat 
oculis suis, et auribus suis 
audiat, et corde suo intelligat, 
et convertatur, et sanem eum. 


Et dixi, Heu, heu, heu, 
Domine Deus! ergone dece- 
pisti populum istum et Jeru¬ 
salem, dicens, Pax erit vobis; 
et ecce pervenit gladius usque 
ad animam. 


Received Version. 


God clave an hollow place 
that was in the jaw, and there 
came water thereout. 


In this thing the Lord par¬ 
don thy servant, that when 
my master goeth into the 
house of Rimmon to worship 
there, and he leaneth on my 
hand, and 1 bow myself in the 
house of Rimmon: when I 
bow down myself in the house 
of Rimmon, the Lord pardon 
thy servant in this thing. 


Make the heart of this peo¬ 
ple fat, and make their ears 
heavy, and shut their eyes; 
lest they see with their eyes, 
and hear with their ears, and 
understand with their heart, 
and convert, and be healed. 


Then said I, Ah,Lord God! 
surely thou hast greatly de¬ 
ceived this people and Jeru¬ 
salem, saying, Ye shall have 
peace; whereas the sword 
reacheth unto the soul. 


Si erit malum in civitate Shall there be evil in a city, 
quod Dominus non fecerit ? and the Lord hath not done it? 
















116 

This collation might be carried to a much 
greater extent, for there are few passages in 
Jerome’s version, which do not equally prove it 
to have been merely a servile translation from 
the Septuagint, and altogether at variance with 
the original Hebrew Text. Presuming therefore 
to consider this point as proved, I proceed to 
examine what degree of truth there may be in 
our Critic’s remaining assertion, respecting the 
fidelity and correctness of our own Received 
Version. 

As this is the most important of all the points 
which he undertook to establish, he introduces it 
with a superior degree of solemnity and positive¬ 
ness. “ We aver most distinctly ,” says he, “ that 
“ our authorized version was made, not from any 
“ translation either ancient or modern, but di- 
“ rectly from the Hebrew original.” In proof of - 
this, he quotes its Title page—“ The Holy Bible, 

“ containing the Old and New Testaments, trans- 
“ lated out of the original tongues, and with the 
“ former translations diligently compared and 
“ revised;” to corroborate which, he adds a pas¬ 
sage from the Translator’s Preface—“ If you ask 
“ what they (the said translators) had before 
“ them (in framing this translation), truly it was 
“ the Hebrew text of the Old Testament.” 
Fortified with this accumulation of authorities, 
he triumphantly proceeds—“ It will be allowed, 

“ we think, that they,” (sc. the said translators) 

“ knew the fact as well as Mr. Bellamy, and are 

as worthy of belief. But the fact is capable of 




117 


tx the most satisfactory proof. If the reader will 
“ take the trouble of comparing a few verses of 
“ the English version with the Hebrew, the Greek 
“ Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate, he will at 
“ once be convinced, from the agreement of the 
“ minuter words and turns of expression, that it 
“ was made directly from the Hebrew.” * 

The reader will observe that here are two 
distinct propositions, one founded on the autho¬ 
rity of the persons by whom our Received Ver¬ 
sion was made, the other founded on the internal 
evidence of the Version itself. I admit that no¬ 
thing can be more satisfactory and convincing 
than such modes of proof, and therefore I will 
strictly confine myself to them, undertaking to 
shew, on the very authorities adduced by the 
Critic, that he is equally wrong in these points 
as in any of the others already noticed. 

In order to gain a proper understanding of this 
matter, we must revert to the course taken by 
King James I, and the learned persons em¬ 
ployed by him, in the important work of a new 
version of the Holy Scriptures. 

Great complaints having been made of the in¬ 
accuracies and corruptions which prevailed 
throughout the various English translations, his 
Majesty, immediately after his accession to the 
throne, issued a Proclamation, whereby he sum¬ 
moned several Bishops and Deans, and others of 
the Clergy, to attend on him at his palace of 


* Quart. Rev. No. 37, p. 258. 


118 


Hampton Court, on January the 12th, 1603, for 
the holding of a conference respecting the abuses 
and corruptions which had been complained of. 
At this conference, his Majesty declared “ that 
“he had never yet seen a Bible well translated in 
“ English , though he thought the Geneva the 
“ worst, and therefore wished that some special 
f( pains should be taken in this matter for one 
“ uniform translation, and to be done by the best 
“ learned in both the universities; after them 
“ to be reviewed by the Bishops and the chief 
“ learned of the Church: from them to be pre- 
“ sented to the Privy Council; and last of all to 
“ be ratified by his Royal Authority, and so this 
“ whole Church to be bound to this translation, 
“ and not to use any other.” * On this Declara¬ 
tion the only observation which, for the present, 
I have occasion to make, is, that the sole reason, 
assigned for the introduction of a new translation 
was, the notoriously corrupted state of all the 
other existing versions. This is an unanswer¬ 
able confutation of the other confident assertion 
made by our Critic respecting those editions, 
which indeed in itself was of little importance, 
as more than two centuries have elapsed since 
any of them have been considered as autho¬ 
rities. 

Shortly after the conference at Hampton Court, 
the King issued his Commission, authorizing 
Forty-seven Dignitaries and eminent Churchmen 

* Barlow’s Sum and Substance of the Hampton Court Con¬ 
ference, p. 45. 




119 

and Scholars to meet, confer and consult toge¬ 
ther at such places as were appointed, so that 
nothing should pass without a general consent, 
in order to make a new and more correct trans¬ 
lation of the Bible. And, that there might be 
no doubt, either as to the royal intentions in this 
respect, or as to the nature of the undertaking, 
or the duties of those by whom it was to be 
executed, his Majesty accompanied his Com¬ 
mission with a set of instructions, plainly and 
definitely pointing out the mode, in which the 
business committed to their charge should be 
done. The following is a copy of them.* 

1. —“ The ordinary Bible read in the Church, 
“ commonly called ‘ The Bishop’s Bible,’ to be 
“ followed, and as little altered as the Original 
“ will permit. 

2. —“ The names of the prophets and the holy 
“ writers, with the other names in the text, to be 
“ retained, as near as may be, accordingly as 
“ they are vulgarly used. 

3. —“ The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, 
“ as the word ‘ Church’ not to be translated 
“ * Congregation.’ 

4. —« When any word hath divers significa- 
“ tions, that to be kept which hath been most 
“ commonly used by the most eminent fathers, 
“ being agreeable to the propriety of the place 
“ and the analogy of faith. 

.. s ■ > ~ -. j 

* Fuller’s Church Hist. p. 46. * * • 


120 


5. —“ The division of the chapters to be altered 
“ either not at all, or as little as maybe, if neces- 
“ sity so require. 

6. —“ No marginal notes at all to be affixed, 
“ but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or 
“ Greek words, which cannot, without some cir- 
“ cumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed 
“ in the text. 

7. —“ Such quotations of places to be mar- 
“ ginally set down, as shall serve for the fit re- 
“ ferences of one scripture to another. 

8. —“ Every particular man of each company 
“ to take the same chapter or chapters; and, 
“ having translated or amended them severally 
“ by himself where he thinks good, all to meet 
“ together, to confer what they have done, and 
“ agree for their part what shall stand. 

9. —“ As any one company hath dispatched 
“ any one book in this manner, they shall send 
“ it to the rest, to be considered of seriously 
“ and judiciously: for his Majesty is very care- 
“ fill in this point. 

10. —“ If any company, upon the review of the 
“ book so sent, shall doubt or differ upon any 
“ places, to send them word thereof, to note the 

N 

places, and therewithal to send their reasons; 
“ to which if they consent not, the difference to 
“ be compounded at the general meeting, which 
“ is to be of the chief persons of each company, 
“ at the end of the work. 

11. —“ When any place of special obscurity 


121 


c ‘ is doubted of, letters to be directed by autho- 
<c rity, to send to any learned in the land for his 
“ judgment in such a place. 

12. —“ Letters to be sent from every bishop to 
“ the rest of his clergy, admonishing them of 
“ this translation in hand, and to move and 
“ charge as many as, being skilful in the tongues, 
“ have taken pains in that kind, to send their 
“ particular observations-to the company, either 
“ at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford, ac- 
“ cording as it was directed before in the King s 
“letter to the Archbishop. 

13. —“ The directors in each company to be 
“ the Deans of Westminster and Chester for 
“ Westminster* and the King’s Professors in 
“ Hebrew and Greek in the two Universities. 

14. —“ These Translations to be used, when 
“ they agree better with the text than the 
“ Bishop’s Bible, viz. Tyndal’s, Coverdale’s, 
“ Matthews’s, Whitchurch’s, Geneva.” 

For the better ordering of the proceedings of 
the translators, his Majesty recommended the 
above rules to them to be very carefully ob¬ 
served. 

The only parts of these instructions, which 
can in any manner apply to the question before 
us, are the first and last articles; and from these 
it clearly appears, that, by whatever title his 
Majesty might have been pleased to dignify the 
projected work, and those engaged in it, it was 
by no means his intention that it should be a 
“ New Translation from the Original Hebrew,” 


R 



122 


/ 


but that it should be merely a Collation, or Re¬ 
vision of the existing English Versions, all of 
which, without any exception, he had, in the 
conference at Hampton Court, unequivocally 
condemned by his declaration, “ that he had 
“ never yet seen a Bible well translated in Eng- 
“ lish.” Strange as this may seem, it undoubt¬ 
edly is the true construction to be put on his 
instructions; and as, according to Lord Coke, 
a contemporary exposition is of all others the 
best, let us see what interpretation was put on 
them by the translators themselves, who, it will 
be acknowledged, must have been best fitted to 
decide what were the intentions of the King, and 
what the duties which they were bound to dis¬ 
charge. And this I am prepared to shew from 
the very same authority which our Critic brings 
forward in support of his assertion, “ that their 
Version was not made from any translation 
“ either ancient or modern, but directly from the 
“ Hebrew Original.” In their own Preface, quoted 
by the Critic, the Translators shew “ what they 
if had proposed to themselves, and what course 
“ they held in this their perusal and survey of 
“ the Bible. On which occasion they never 
“ thought, from the beginning, that they should 
“ need to make a new translation, nor yet to 
“ make of a bad one, a good one; but their en- 
“ deavour and mark was, to make a good one 
“ better, or, out of many good ones, one principal 
“ good one, not justly to be excepted against.’’ 
This surely is intelligible language. The authors 


123 


of the work themselves solemnly declare to the 
public and to the Monarch by whom they had 
been employed, that they had obeyed his instruc¬ 
tions, and fulfilled his intentions, not by making 
a new translation, the remotest design of doing 
which they utterly disclaim, but by collating 
and revising the former translations. 

I need not make any comment on the conduct 
of a writer, who is thus convicted, by the very 
evidence adduced by himself, of so gross and 
wilful a suppression of the truth. I will there¬ 
fore proceed to the last point in discussion be¬ 
tween us, which is (whether designedly, or acci¬ 
dentally, I know not) so ambiguously expressed 
as to render his meaning extremely doubtful. 
His words are “ If the reader will take the 
“ trouble of comparing a few verses of the Eng- 
“ lish Version with the Hebrew, the Greek Sep- 
“ tuagint, and the Latin Vulgate, he will at once 
“ be convinced, from the agreement of the 
“ minuter words and turns of expression, that it 
was made directly from the Hebrew.” Now 
with what are these minuter words and turns of 
expression to agree? With the Hebrew? The 
Sep tuagint ? The Latin Vulgate? Or with all of 
them ? In none of these cases will he be able to 
reach his conclusion. From the foregoing Table 
of Collations, it appears that, not only in minuter 
words and turns of expression, but in very sub¬ 
stance and essence, such an entire discrepancy 
prevails between the Septuagint and Vulgate on 
one hand, and the Hebrew on the other, that no 


124 


middle term can be applied, which can agree 
with them both. Should the Critic mean that 
a direct agreement subsists between the Received 
Version and the Hebrew, the fact may be dis¬ 
proved by a reference to the above Table. The 
result of such inspection must be the conviction, 
that, in every one of the important passages there 
collated, there is an entire coincidence between 
the Received Version, the Septuagint, and the 
Vulgate, and as entire a disagreement between 
them and the Hebrew Original. 

I might suffer the case to rest here, and assume, 
as a matter sufficiently proved, that our Received 
Version is little more than a servile translation 
of the Septuagint and Vulgate. But I am aware 
I may be charged with having made a partial 
selection of passages favourable to my argument, 
and that other passages equally important may 
be brought forward, from which an opposite con¬ 
clusion may be drawn. Though I am convinced 
that no such evidence can be adduced, the ques¬ 
tion is too important to be left in a state of un¬ 
certainty. It has claims upon us of the highest 
and most serious nature, affecting all our dearest 
interests, both temporal and eternal. In order 
to obey a law, it is necessary previously to know 
distinctly what that law is. To the want of this 
certainty, arising from the manifold corruptions 
which have been introduced into the sacred text, 
must be attributed the origin and growth of those 
impious and abominable heresies by which the 
Christian Church has been invaded, every one' 


125 


of which, from those of the original Ebionites 
to those of the modem Unitarians, is founded 
solely on false interpretations of the divine law. 
Of all the crafty inventions of the devil to mis¬ 
lead and seduce mankind, this perversion of the 
Holy Scriptures is the most efficacious : it is 
rearing the standard of falsehood against the re¬ 
velation of heaven; it is overthrowing the altars 
of the Most High, and worshipping the molten 
calves of our own setting up; it is poisoning the 
fount of truth, and converting its pure and sacred 
streams into corruption and death. 

In order therefore to shew yet more distinctly 
the effect attributable to these misinterpretations 
of the text, I will conclude what I have to say 
on the subject by a second collation of corre¬ 
sponding passages; not, as before, fortuitously 
taken, but most intimately connected with the 
very basis of Christianity, namely, The Unin¬ 
terrupted Succession of the Priesthood and 
Church of God, and the equally Uninterrupted 
Practice of the Sacrifice of Expiation and Atone¬ 
ment, symbolical of the one great Sacrifice and 
Atonement to be consummated by the death of 
our Blessed Saviour. 


i 


126 


Literal Translation from the Hebrew. 


„ Gen. iii. 15.—I will put en¬ 
mity between thee and the 
woman, also between her pos¬ 
terity and thy posterity; he 
shall bruise thy head, and thou 
shalt bruise his heel. 

—— 22.—-Jehovah God 
said, Behold the man was as 
one of us, with knowledge of 
good and evil; therefore now 
surely he shall put forth his 
hand, and take also of the 
tree of life, yea he shall eat 
and live for ever. 

—-23.—Thus Jehovah 

God sent him forth from the 
garden of Eden, when he had 
transgressed on the ground ; 
therefore he was taken there¬ 
from. 

" ■' 24.—So he expelled 

the man : then he tabernacled 
at the east of the garden of 
Eden with the Cherubim, and 
with the burning flame, which 
turned itself to continue the 
way of the tree of life. 


— iv. 3.—Moreover, it was 
at the conclusion of the age, 
that Cain brought of the fruit 
of the ground, a bread-offer¬ 
ing, before Jehovah. 


Septuagint Version. 


Kad I'^Qpxv Oytru a,vx pearov crov 
xxi xvx fxitjov Tyjf ywxixog, xx] 
xvx [Acrov t« cntippolos aa, xxi xvx 
[AEtrov rou cr r rrspp.ot\o<; xolns * <xiTlo<; 
crov Tnpvxsi xstyx^yjv, xxi av rvigv)- 
cu<; xilv zjTspvxv. 

Kxi eH'rrsv o 0eoj, ’Got; ’a^x/j. 
ysyoviv eT* e| ^5/awv, ra yiviixrxuv 

Xx\oV XXI Tjjoyopov’ XXI VVV (AVITrole 
' n / \ ~ ’Oi- » , r /a . \ 

EKluvy rvtv^ttpx xv la, xxi xiro 
T« %v\ti tyis %cor>c, xxl <pxyy> xxi 
£yi<teIxi eis tov xluvx. 


Kxi e%x7TE<rlei\EV xClov Kvpioq o 
0EO? lx T« zsxpx^siau TVS Tpvtpijs, 
epyx^sadxi rrjv yr\v 1% ni tXv)<pQr). 


Kxi s%e£x\s tov A^xp, xxi 
xxluixicr ev xvlov xitivuvli t« t rxpx- 
($sl(7tt T Y)S Tpvtpyq, xxi ETX%e TX 
"Xepov^ipf xxi r?jy (pXoy'iyviv pop- 
Qxlxv, rriv (flpstpoplvviv $v\xaaziv 
r riv o$ov t« f Tys 


K xi Eysvslo p eQ ripipxs, yveyxe 
Ka iv xiio ruv xxpiruv tv)$ yv)s 9v- 
alxv rZ Kvpitt). 









127 


Jerome's Version. 


Inimicitias ponam inter te 
et mulierem, et semen tuum 
et semen illius : ipse conteret 
caput tuum, et tu insidiaberis 
calcaneo ejus. 

Et ait, Ecce Adam quasi 
unus ex nobis factus est,sciens 
bonum et malum: nunc ergo 
ne forte mittat manum suam, 
et sumat etiam de ligno vitae, 
et comedat, et vivat in aeter- 
num. 

Emisit eum Dominus Deus 
de paradiso voluptatis, utope- 
retur terrain de qua sumptus 
est. 


Ejecitque Adam, et collo- 
cavit ante paradisum volup¬ 
tatis Cherubim, et flammeum 
gladium atque versatilem, ad 
custodiendam viam ligni vitae. 


Factum est autem post mul- 
tos dies, ut offerret Cain de 
fructibus terrae munera Do¬ 
mino. 


Received Version. 


I will put enmity between 
thee and the woman, and be¬ 
tween thy seed and her seed ; 
it shall bruise thy head, and 
thou shalt bruise his heel. 

The Lord God said, Behold 
the man is become as one of 
us, to know good and evil; 
and now, lest he put forth his 
hand, and take also of the 
tree of life, and eat, and live 
for ever. 


Therefore the Lord God 
sent him forth from the gar¬ 
den of Eden, to till the ground 
from whence he was taken. 


So he drove out the man; 
and he placed at the east of 
the garden of Eden Cheru¬ 
binis, and a flaming sword 
which turned every way, to 
keep the way of the tree of 
life. 


And in process of time it 
came to pass, that Cain 
brought of the fruit of the 
ground an offering. 






128 


Literal Translation from the Hebrew . 


Gen. iv. 4.— But Abel came 
even with firstlings of his 
sheep, yea of their fattest: So 
Jehovah had respect to Abel 
and to his bread offering. 

-5.—Therefore to Cain, 

even because of his bread offer¬ 
ing, he had no respect. 

— vi. 14. —Rooms thou 
shalt make in the ark, for thou 
shalt expiate in it, even a 
house, also with an outer 
room for atonement. 


— viii. 20. —Then Noah 
built an altar before Jehovah ; 
and he took of every clean 
beast, also of every clean bird; 
and he offered offerings on the 
altar. 

- 21.—And Jehovah 

accepted the incense of rest. 

— ix. 21.—He (Noah) 
drank of the wine, and he 
was satisfied; for he himself 
opened the inmost part of the 
tabernacle: 

-- 22.—Where Ham, 

the father of Canaan, exposed 
the symbols of his father, 
which he declared to his two 
brethren without. 


Septuagint Persian. 


Kai AvsX vvsyxs kxi avlos a,<no 
T UV ZJpuloTOXUV TUV TTpoCdZuV XV iS, 
XXI XHO TU/V alscclu v xvImv * Ka< 
£7te7($£v o 0 £ o $ hri "aGeX xxi \nu 
r oTq teapots avlov. 

’Etti c h Kxiv xxi etti txTs Qvaioas 
XvlS 0V 'ojpoartCTY.E, 


’Nocrtriag tjoivtei^ rr,v xt£cJlov • 
xa/ aatyaXTuHTEig xvlvjv e<tu 9 ev xxi 
E^Ci}9eV Xa^xXTU* 


Kai uxo^opAVias N£h OutTiaalripiov 
tu K* xxi eXxCev xtto zjxvIuv 
T wv xlvivwv tmv xx9xpuiv, x«i cctto 

ZjXvluV TUV TSeIeIVUV TWV XX^XpuVy 

xai xv’nviyxEv oXoxdpirutTtv eirt to 
OvTixarriptov. 

K act w<jtypdv 9 v) K vpioq o Qeos ocr m 

[AVIV EVU&tXS, 


’'Ettiev ex tS oJva, xxi I fAsdva-Ovf, 
xxi s lyv[A.vu 9 s h tZ olxu xvtov. 


Kxt S Et% XufA 0 ZJOtlyp Xxvxccv 
Tv>v yvfAvcoeriv tS <cratlpo{ avlS> xxt 
U;sX 9 uv xvviyyEiXE toTs cWly oZ$eX~ 
^015 avl£ e£u. 












129 


/ 


Jerome s Version, Received Version, 


Abel quoque obtulit de pri* 
mogenitis gregis sui, et de 
adipibus eorum: et respexit 
Dominus ad Abel, et ad mu- 
nera ejus. 

Ad Cain autem, et ad mu- 
nera illius, non respexit. 


And Abel, he also brought 
of the firstlings of his flock, 
and of the fat thereof. And 
the Lord had respect unto 
Abel and to his offering. 

But unto Cain and to his 
offering he had no respect. 


Mansiunculas in area facies, Rooms shalt thou make in 
et bitumine limes intrinsecus ^ le ark, and shalt pitch it 
et extrinsecus. within and without with pitch. 


fEdificavit autem Noe altare And Noah budded an altar 
Domino: et tollens de cunctis unto the Lord; and took of 

pecoribus et volucribus mun- every clean beast, and of every 
dis, obtulit holocausta super clean fowl, and offered burnt ' 
altare. offerings on the altar. 


Odoratusque est Dominus 
odorem suavitatis. 


Bibens vinum inebriatus est, 
et nudatus in tabernaculo suo. 


Quod cum vidisset Cham 
pater Chanaan, verenda scili¬ 
cet patris sui esse nudata, 
nuntiavit duobus fratribus suis 
foras. 


And the Lord smelled a 
sweet savour. 


He drank, of the wine and 
was drunken; and he was un¬ 
covered within his tent. 

And Ham, the father of Ca¬ 
naan, saw the nakedness of 
his father, and told his two 
brethren without. 


S 












130 


Literal Translation from the Hebrew. 


Gen. ix. 23.—But Shem 
with Japheth had taken the 
vestment, which both of them 
set up for a portion; there 
they afterwards went, and con¬ 
cealed the symbols of their 
father, with their faces back¬ 
ward ; but the symbols of 
their father they saw not. 

- 24.—When Noah 

ended his wine (for he knew 
that his younger son had 
offered for himself.) 

-25.—Then he said, 

Cursed is Canaan. 

— xii. 7*—There Jehovah 
had appeared to Abram, when 
he said, To thy posterity I 
will give this land: for he 
built there an altar before Je¬ 
hovah, who appeared to him. 

- 8.—Moreover, he 

had removed thence to a moun¬ 
tain, eastward of Bethel, 
where he placed his taber¬ 
nacle ; Bethel by the sea, with 
Hai eastward; for he had 
built there an altar before Je¬ 
hovah, where he preached in 
the name of Jehovah. 

— xiii. 3.—Now he went 
on his journies from the south, 
even to Bethel, to the place 
where his tabernacle had been 
from the beginning: 


Septuagint Version. 


K xi A(j tCovlss xxi lxtysO 

to ifACcliov, etteOevIo Ini' rot, $vo vwlsc. 
otflav, K) I'jropEvOriO'xv ot TiaOotpxvws, 
xxi' crvvExxbv^xv rrjv yvpMUtriv tS 
Tjxlpbg xvluv’ xxi To 'npoxu'nov xvluv 
b'TrirxQotpcx.vusy xxi t yiv yvpvcvcriv ra 

'ttXTpbs XVTUV OVA sillov* 

> E%EVV)'\/E £e Nwt XTtO T« OlVOV, 
xxi zyvcv bax \'noiv\<Jiv xvTui o oioi 
avlx o veuiTBpoi* 

Kxt s ei 7 Tev, ’Et TixxTocpxToq Xx- 
vxxv zjx7s. 

K xi u$0s K vpioq tw ''A^px[x y 

\ r »~ rr ,r# f o ~ 

XXI BOTEV XVTtV, J U (TTrspiAXIl CTH 

uatn tvv t xvlriv ’ xxi Cjjxo^b(xvi(7EV 
Ixei v AQpxye Ovatxcflripiov YLvplv , r5 

otyO'zVTl XV tu. 

K ou ocTrsarr) sxBt/fv sis to opos 
xxrcc xvxtoXxs B xi9r>\, xxi ' effTYr; 
Ixei ty)v axrtvriv xvl5 lv B xiOnXxxrx 
OxXxtraxv, xxi Ayyxi xxtcc, xvx - 
T oAa? * xxi' uxo^b(xvia-Ev exh Ovcri- 
x&lypiov Tu Kvplu, xxi' IttexxXexizIo 
E7 Tl' Tip 0 vb\XXTl K vplov. 


K xi' IwogEvOv) oQbv yhOsv els Triv 
Bpv)/j.ov ) levs B«/$>5a, lut; rov To r nov f 
ov vv v crxwv xvlS to 'urpoTtpov. 











V 


131 


Jerome's Version. 


At vero Sem et Japhetli 
pallium imposuerunt humeris 
suis, et incedentes retrorsum 
operuerunt verenda patris sui; 
faciesque eorum aversae erant, 
et patris virilia non viderunt 


Evigilans autem Noe ex 
vino, cum didicisset quae fece- 
rat ei filius suus minor, 

Ait, Maledictus Chanaan. 


Apparuit autem Dominus 
Abram, et dixit ei, Semini 
tuo dabo terram hanc. Qui 
sedificavit ibi altare Domino, 
qui apparuerat ei. 

Et inde transgrediens ad 
montem qui erat contra ori- 
entem Bethel, tetendit ibi ta- 
bernaculum suum, ab occi- 
dente habens Bethel, et ab 
orienteHai: sedificavit quoque 
ibi altare Domino, et invocavit 
nomen ejus. 


Reversusque est per iter 
quo venerat a meridie in 
Bethel usque ad locum ubi 
prius fixerat tabernaculum: 


Received Version. 


And Shem and Japheth 
took a garment, and laid it 
upon both their shoulders, and 
went backward, and covered 
the nakedness of their father ; 
and their faces were backward, 
and they saw not their father’s 
nakedness. 

— o' 

And Noah awoke from his 
wine, and knew what his 
younger son had done unto 
him. 

And he said, Cursed be 
Canaan. 

And the Lord appeared to 
Abram, and said, Unto thy 
seed will I give this land ; and 
there builded he an altar unto 
the Lord, who appeared unto 
him. 

And he removed from 
thence unto a mountain on 
the east of Bethel, and pitched 
his tent, having Bethel on the 
west, and Hai on the~ east; 
and there he builded an altar 
unto the Lord, and called 
upon the name of the Lord. 


And he went on his journies 
from the south even to Bethel, 
unto the place where his tent 
had been at the beginning; 








132 


Literal Translation from the Hebrew. 


Gen. xiii. 4.—To the place 
of the altar, which he made 
there at the first; for there 
Abram preached in the name 
of Jehovah. 

■» 4 

-18.—There Abram 

tabernacled, when he went 
and dwelt in the plains of 
Mamre, which is by Hebron ; 
and he built there an altar 
before Jehovah. 


— xv. 9.—And He (Je¬ 
hovah) said to him, Bring 
before me a calf of three 
years, with a she goat of three 
years, also a turtle dove and a 
pigeon. 

-■ 10.—So he brought 

before him all these, and he 
divided them in the midst; 
then he laid each his piece 
against his other; but the 
bird he divided not. 

-11.—Then descend¬ 
ed the covering upon the 
bodies; with them He inspired 
Abram. 

■ — 17. Now it was 

when the sun had departed, 
and it was twilight; then be¬ 
hold a shining smoke, and a 
torch of fire, when He passed 
between the divisions of these. 


Septuagint Version. 


Eii rov tottov r« Svcrixcilvpiov ov 

ETTO/Wfy ZXH TVV * XCCl EltlXX- 

XzaxTo e xa Abpxp. to ovopx tx 
K vpiu. 

Kxi ovTroo-xvvutrxs” AGpxp. i E\Quv 
xxTuxvas arxpx tvv $pv v tvv Map.- 
CpW) v) vv zv KE^pup.” xxi wkoSo- 
p.vasv Ixet Qvaiaalvpiov ru Kvpiu, 


El ttsSe avTu, Ax.Qzp.oi ^xpxXtv 
rptfl'ifyv'Tuv, xxi xiyx rpislltyvaav, 
xxi xpiov rpisii^ovTXy xxi rpvyovx, 
xxi vrspialepoiv. 


"EXxQe xvlu t roivlx txZtx , xxi 
cheiXzv xvrx p.E<rx, xxi e^vxev xvlx 
aiharpoairnrx aXXvXoii * r a os opvsx 
ov SteiXe, 


KaTzQv Ss opvsx liri rx (Jwp.oi\x y 
tvi rx dixorop.viJi.alx xvluv * xxi 
crwexoiOiaE)/ xvToTq "AQpap., 

’E <tth Ss o vXiOi lyzvsTO Tjpoq 
<)V(rp.xs f <pXo% lysvETO* xxi u$ov 
xXiQxvoi xx'rrvi^op.evos xxi Xxp.Tfx. 
<%? Tzvpoi, olv §ivXQcv avx p.icrov Twv 
^i^orop.vp.XTuv THTUV, 












133 


Jerome's Version. 


In loco altaris quod fecerat 
prius, et invocavit ibi nomen 
Domini. 


Movens igitur tabernacu- 
lum suum Abram, venit, et 
habitavit juxta convallem 
Mambre, quae est in Hebron; 
aedificavitque ibi altare Do¬ 
mino. 


Et respondens Dominus, 
Sume, inquit, mihi vaccam 
triennem, et capram trimam, 
et arietem annorum trium, 
turturem quoque et colum- 
bam. 

Qui tollens universa liaec, 
divisit ea per medium, et 
utrasque partes contra se al- 
trinsecus posuit: aves autem 
non divisit. 

Descenderuntque volucres 
super cadavera, et abigebat 
eas Abram. 

Cum ergo occubuisset sol, 
facta est caligo tenebrosa, et 
apparuit clibanus fumans, et 
lampas ignis transiens inter di- 
visiones illas. 


Received Version. 


Unto the place of the altar, 
which he had made there at 
the first; and there Abram 
called on the name of the 
Lord. 

Then Abram removed his 
tent, and came and dwelt in 
the plain Mamre, which is in 
Hebron, and built there an 
altar unto the Lord. 


And he said unto him, Take 
me an heifer of three years 
old, and a she goat of three 
years old, and a turtle dove 
and a young pigeon. 

And he took unto him all 
these, and divided them in the 
midst, and laid each piece one 
against another; but the birds 
divided he not. 

And when the fowls came 
down upon the carcasses, 
Abram drove them away. 

And it came to pass, that, 
when the sun went down, and 
it was dark, behold a smoking 
furnace, and a burning lamp 
that passed between those 
pieces. 









134 


Literal Translation from the Hebrew. 


Gen. xviii. 1.—Jehovah ap¬ 
peared unto him in the plains 
of Mamre, where he conti¬ 
nued opening the tabernacle, 
about the heat of the day. 

— xxii. 1.—Now it was 
after these transactions, that 
God proved Abraham. 

- 2.—Thus he said, 

Take now thy son, thine only 
one whom thou lovest, even 
Isaac, and depart; go to the 
land of Moriah; and cause 
him to ascend there concern¬ 
ing the offering, upon one of 
the mountains which I will 
mention to thee. 

-5.—Also Abraham 

said to his youths, Abide you 
here, with the ass, and I with 
the youth will go yonder ; for 
we will worship : then we will 
return to you. 

-■ 6.—Abraham took 

the wood of the offering, 
which he laid upon Isaac his 
son; also he took in his hand 
the fire and the knife; then 
they went both of them to¬ 
gether. 

-7.—Moreover Isaac 

said, Behold the fire and the 
wood ; but where is the lamb 
for a burnt offering ? 


Septuagint Version r 


y CL(pQ '0 $e aura o 0 eo?, typos tv 
Spot rv Ma/xCpv, xxOvpKsvov avia 
Itti tw$ 9vpxs tv$ axvyvs otvla / ae - 
cTvpJvpia ?. 


K xi lysvETo pa eto- ra pv[xxTx 
Txvlx o ©eos liteifxaz Toy ’AGpxdp., 

K ai EiTTE, AaSs rov vlov era rov 
ayaicrSby, ov yyavriicras, Toy lcrxxxy 
xaf tyopevSvh els Tvv yvv v-^rAvvy 
xxi dymyxe avrov e<s ohoxap- 
nxuaiv !<£>’ iy tuv optwv uv ay aoi 
uvu. 


Kaf siTFEv ’A £pxa[x Tot’s ty xtaiy 
avia, Ka9i'craTE avia pLsla Tvs ovoy * 

lya Se xai to ty atbapiov $iE\tv<ro- 
Pke 9 x ews Z^e' xai ty^oaxvvvcraylES, 
ayxalpi-^opKEy typos v\xas* 

Se ’A^paap. ra %v\x rij? 
oXoxap'irwcriuSy xaf Itte^vxev 'laaax. 
Tip vttp aila * eA«Ce <^e [kstx x&P as 
y.xi To tyvp xai tvv /xa^a/pay, 
xxi l'iropvj9'n i ray ol Svo ap.x» 


E Vote 5e ’hrxdx ’Gou To tyvp xai ' 
ra %v\xy zyov tali to zypo£xrov to 
e;s oKoxx^nuatv ; 










135 


Jerome's Version. 


Apparuit autem ei Dominus 
in convalle Mambre sedenti 
in ostio tabernaculi sui, in 
ipso fervore diei. 


Quae postquam gesta sunt, 
tentavit Deus Abraham. 

Ait illi, Tolle filium tuum 
unigenitum quem diligis Isaac, 
et vade in terrain visionis: 
atque ibi offeres eum in holo- 
caustum, super unum mon- 
tium quem monstravero tibi. 


Received Version, 


The Lord appeared unto 
him in the plains of Mamre; 
and he sat in the tent door in 
the heat of the day* 


And it came to pass after 
these things, that God did 
tempt Abraham. 

And he said, Take now thy 
son, thine only son Isaac, 
whom thou lovest, and get 
thee into the land of Moriah ; 
and offer him there for a burnt- 
offering, upon one of the 
mountains which I will tell 
thee of. 


Dixitque ad pueros suos, And Abraham said unto his 
Expectate hie cum asino; young men, Abide ye here 
ego autem et puer illuc usque with the ass, and I and the 
properantes, postquam adora- lad will go yonder and wor- 
verimus, revertemur ad vos. ship, and come again to you. 


Tulit quoque signa holo- 
causti, et imposuit super Isaac 
filium suum: ipse vero porta- 
bat in manibus ignem et gla- 
dium. Cumque duo perge- 
rent simul, 


Abraham took the wood of 
the burnt offering, and laid it 
upon Isaac his son; and he 
took the fire in his hand, and 
a knife ; and they went both 
of them together. 


Dixit Isaac patri suo, Ecce And Isaac said, Behold the 
ignis et ligna, ubi est victima fire and the wood, but where 
holocausti ? is the lamb for a burnt offer- 






13 G 


Literal Translation from the Hebrew. 


Gen.xxii.8.—And Abraham 
replied, God will provide be¬ 
fore him the lamb for a burnt 
offering, my son. Thus they 
went both of them together. 

* -9.—When they came 

to the place which God had 
mentioned to him,—for Abra¬ 
ham had built there an altar— 
then he laid the wood in order, 
and he bound Isaac his son, 
and laid him upon the altar on 
the wood. 

— — - 10.—Now Abraham 
put forth his hand, and took 
the knife to slay his son. 

- 11.—But the mes¬ 
senger of Jehovah made a 
proclamation concerning him 
from heaven: 

-12_Thou shalt not 

put forth thine hand against 
the youth, for thou shalt not 
do any harm to him ; because 
now 1 know that he feareth 
God, moreover neither hast 
thou withheld thy son, thine 
only one, from me. 

-13.—Then Abraham 

raised his eyes, and he looked, 
and behold, a ram, behind, 
was fastened in the enclosure 
by his horns: so Abraham 
went, and took the ram, and 
offered him for a burnt offer¬ 
ing instead of his son. 


Septuagint Version. 


E/Vs ’ACpsea//,, 'O ©so? o\J/S Ixi 
lxvlw 'ZJpoCxrov sis oXoaocpirwuiv, 

TEKVOV* TJopEvOlvlES $£ X^blspOl X^Xy 


r HX9ov liri rov r o^oy, ov eTttev 

>1 ~ C ^ . '’V 5-* 

avlu> 0 ©EOS’* Y.XI WKOOO[J.VICTEV EY.H 

’A Qpxoiu. to 9vaixal'bpiovy kxi \iti m 
9 vjke rx %v\x * Y.xi avp.rro'b'icrxq 

’T \ \ t\ 

icrxxx. rov viov xvrov , ettevvikev 

avlov a7 u to Qvaixar'opiov ettoovu Tuv 
%vXwv. 

K xi ef’sTEtVEV 'A^pxccp. rriv yftpx 
xvl5 \x£elv rriv p.x^xi^xvy a$ol%xi 

\ c \ 30 •*- 

Toy viov avlov* 

K xi Ix.x\e<tev xvrov ayyshos Ky- 
Ik rov ovpxvz, 


1'tu$x\yis rv>v %/ipx ett/ 
to zyxi^xpiovy [Kvt $3 zjoirtcrviq xvlaj 
fK^Ev * »yv yxp syvwVf on p>o£y av 
rov Qeov * xai ovx. l^etaoj rov viov 

~ rs* 3 n / 

(70V TOV CCyOCTTYllOV o £{ae* 


K xi xvx^Xl-^xi A£pxx(x rois 
oQ9xX[ao7<; xvrS eiSe* kxi i$ov, 
xpioq Eli XXTEXO/KEVOS \v (p)VTW Xx- 

Cek TWV KEpxlbJV * iCj ETropEvGr) ’ a £- 
' \ V. (O ' V \ > I 

pXXfXy Kj EAX’oE rov KplOV , Xj awi- 
VEyy.EV xvrov eU bXoxxgTtwriv avti 
fcrxxK rov viov xvrov. 









137 


Jerome s Version. 


Dixit autem Abraham, Deus 
providebit sibi victimam holo¬ 
caust!, fili mi. Pergebant ergo 
pariter. 

Et venerunt ad locum quern 
ostenderat ei Deus, in quo 
aedificavit altare, et desuper 
ligna composuit, cumque alii- 
gasset Isaac filium suum, 
posuit eum in altare super 
struem lignorum. 

Extenditque manum, et ar- 
ripuit gladium, ut immolaret 
filium suum. 

Et ecce angelus Domini de 
ccelo clamavit, 


Non extendas manum tuam 
super puerum, neque facias 
illi quicquam; nunc cognovi 
quod timeas Dominum, et non 
pepercisti unigenito filio tuo 
propter me. 


Levavit Abraham oculos 
suos, viditque post tergum 
arietem inter vepres haeren- 
tem cornibus; quem assumens 
obtulit holocaustum pro filio. 


Received Version. 


And Abraham said, My son, 
God will provide himself a 
lamb for a burnt offering; so 
they went both of them toge¬ 
ther. 

And they came to the place 
which God had told him of: 
and Abraham built an altar 
there, and laid the wood in 
order, and bound Isaac his 
son, and laid him on the altar 
upon the wood. 

And Abraham stretched 
forth his hand, and took the 
knife to slay his son. 

And the angel of the Lord 
called unto him out of heaven: 


Lay not thine hand upon 
the lad, neither do thou any 
thing unto him: for now I 
know that thou fearest God, 
seeing thou hast not withheld 
thy son, thine only son from 
me. 

And Abraham lifted up his 
eyes, and looked, and behold 
behind him a ram caught in a 
thicket by his horns: and Abra¬ 
ham went and took the ram, 
and offered him up for a burnt 
offering in the stead of his son. 


T 




138 


Literal Translation from the Hebrew. 


Gen. xxvi.25.—He (Isaac) 
built there an altar, and he 
preached in the name of Je¬ 
hovah, for he placed there 
his tabernacle. 


— xxvii. 4_Offer before 

me the repast such as I loved, 
then bring it before me, and 
I will eat; for this cause my 
soul shall bless thee before I 
die. 

-6.—Then Rebekah 

conversed with Jacob her son, 
saying, Behold I have heard 
thy father, speaking to Esau 
thy brother, saying, 

-7.— Bring me pro¬ 
vision, and prepare for me the 
repast, and I will eat; then I 
will bless thee in the presence 
of Jehovah before my death. 

, -9.—Go now to the 

flock, and fetch for me thence 
two good kids of the goats; 
and I will provide with them 
the repast for thy father, such 
as he loveth. 

- 10. — Then thou 
shalt bring it to thy father, 
and he will eat; for this cause, 
there he will bless thee before 
his death. 


Septuagint Version . 


K xt uKO^opyimv lust dvatotalj- 
piov • xxi iTTEuxXiaxro to ovopx 
ra K vpm* nxt itt^em exe* tw 
<rK*ivvjv xvrov. 


Ka< vjo1y)<tov pt.ot l^Eapxrx, us 
QtXu lyu, xott e vsyxs pot 9 'Ivx tyolyu • 
ott us EvXoyway ere n 4 /V X^ V ov f 
zsp'iv a? ro9xvs7v ps. 


Pe€ex.x.x Se eTtte ‘CTpos rov ’ixxuC 
TOV v'tov xvlri<; Ixdaauy ’ wovcrx 
tS zrxTpo$ aov XxXovylos / srpos 
t Harxv rov x^eX^ov aov , Xe yoylosy 

’ Eysyiiov pot 9-npxvy pat ttoivhtov 
pot l^s<rpxlx t *tyx tyxywv EvXoyotju 
as ivxyrtov K vp\ov zrpo rov xtto- 

QxVeI'v pE. 

Kxi TJOpEvOstS Eli TX ZTgoCxIx, 
XxCe pot I X.e'iQeV $V 0 Ipttpovq X7TX- 
Xovg , y.xi' y.xXovs‘ text' rsoenaru xvlSg 
E^Ecrpxlx rw zrxrpl aoVf us QiXe?. 


K ut e\<toi<tei$ tu vrxrpi crow, 
ytxt' (Pxyslxt , oitus e vXoyoay as o 
njarrjp aov zrpo rov xTtoQxmv xvlov. 











139 


Jerome s Version. 


Itaque aedificavit ibi altare, 
et invocato nomine Domini, 
extendit tabernaculum. 


Fac mihi inde pulmentum, 
sicut velle me nosti, et afFer 
ut comedam, et benedicat 
tibi anima mea antequam mo- 
riar. 

Dixit filio suo Jacob, Au- 
divi patrem tuum loquentem 
cum Esau fratre tuo, et di- 
centem ei, 

AfFer mihi de venatione tua, 
et fac cibos, ut comedam, et 
benedicam tibi coram Domino 
antequam moriar. 

Et pergens ad gregem, afFer 
mihi duos haedos optimos, ut 
faciam ex iis escas patri tuo, 
quibus libenter vescitur: 


Quas cum intuleris, et co- 
mederit, benedicat tibi prius- 
quam moriatur. 


Received Version. 


He builded an altar there, 
and called upon the name of 
the Lord, and pitched his 
tent there. 


Make me savoury meat, 
such as I love, and bring it 
to me, that I may eat; that 
my soul may bless thee be¬ 
fore I die. 


And Rebekah spake unto 
Jacob her son, saying, Be¬ 
hold, I heard thy father speak 
unto Esau thy brother, say¬ 
ing* 

Bring me venison, and make 
me savoury meat, that I may 
eat, and bless thee before the 
Lord before my death. 

Go now to the flock, and 
fetch me from thence two 
good kids of the goats ; and I 
will make them savoury meat 
for thy father, such as he 
loveth: 

And thou shalt bring it to 
thy father, that he may eat, 
and that he may bless thee 
before his death. 




s 






140 


Literal Translation from the Hebrew . 


Gen. xxvii. 14.—Thenhe de¬ 
parted and took them, which 
he brought to his mother; and 
his mother prepared the re¬ 
past, such as his father loved. 

.-- 17.—Then she gave 

the repast, also the bread, 
which she had prepared, into 
the hand of Jacob her son. 

—-25.—And he (Isaac) 

said, Approach before me, for 
I will eat the repast of my 
son; then my soul shall bless 
thee. 

«■ - .- 29.—People will 

serve thee, yea nations will 
bow to thee; be mighty before 
thy brethren; for the sons of 
thy mother shall bow to thee; 
Cursed is every one that 
curseth thee, but blessed is he 
that blesseth thee. 


— xxxiii. 19.—There he 
(Jacob) bought a portion of 
land, where he had placed his 
tabernacle; 

-20.—Also he erected 

there an altar, and he preached 
before Him, the mighty God 
of Israel. 


— xxxvii. 3.—Now Israel 
preferred Joseph before any 


Septuagint Version . 


TIopsvQsiq <$Ef e Xa£s xxi' yvsyxs 
T»J /jtylpi, xxi \%o\yasy y [zyryp 
ocvtov fdsap.xlxf xxQx Ityihsi a 
'<vxryp avlov. 

Kaf sSeoxs rx llsapxlx xai K roy? 
upTovs ovq I'/roiyasv, sis rois ytTpxt 

IXXW'o TU VIOV UVT7]?, 

K zi s eTtte, Ylpoaxyxys poi y xaf 
(pa.yop.xt an to tSj? Qypxs aov Tsxvoy, 
I'yx sv'koyyay as y p.ov. 


Kaf $ov\svaxruauv aot s9vy f 

\ / 1 tr 

xxi zr^oaxvvyaoiruaxy aoi apypv- 
Ur xxi' yivov xvgios tov a<$sX l pov 

aov, xxi' Tjpoaxvvyaoval aoi ot vioi 
rS 'zaxTpoq aov • 0 xxrxpsjpEVoi; as , 

sTrixxTxpxToq * 0 ^e svXoywy as , £y* 
‘koyyp.Uoq. 


Kxi IxryazTo r yv pip'iox tov 
xypov, ov earyasv sxsT Tyy axyyyy 
avrov • 

K xt earyasv lxs7 OvaixaTypiov, 
xxi' IvsxxXsaaro tov Qsov'lapxyX. 


*IxxuQ Se yyxrrx rev ’luay<p 
zjzgx zjccvlas tov$ viovs aiTloy, on 












Jerome's Version. 


Received Version. 


Abiit, et attulit, deditque 
matri; paravit ilia cibos, sicut 
velle noverat patrem illius. 


Deditque pulmentum, et 
panes quos coxerat, tradidit. 


At ille, Affer mihi, inquit, 
cibos de venatione tua, fili mi, 
ut benedicat tibi anima mea. 


And he went, and fetched, 
and brought them to his 
mother; and his mother made 
savoury meat such as his 
father loved. 

And she gave the savoury 
meat and the bread, which 
she had prepared, into the 
hand of her son Jacob. 

And he said, Bring it near 
to me, and 1 will eat of my 
son’s venison, that my soul 
may bless thee. 


Et serviant tibi populi, et 
adorent te tribus: esto do- 
minus fratrum tuorum, et in- 
curventur ante te filii matris 
tuae. Qui maledixerit tibi sit 
ille maledictus, et qui bene- 
dixerit tibi benedictionibus 
repleatur. 

Emitque partem agri in qua 
fixerat tabernacula; 


Et erecto ibi altari, invo- 
cavit super illud fortissimum 
Deum Israel. 


Israel autem diligebat Jo¬ 
seph super omnes filios, ed 


Let people serve thee, and 
nations bow down to thee; be 
lord over thy brethren, and 
let thy mother’s sons bow 
down to thee: cursed be every 
one that curseth thee, and 
blessed be he that blesseth 
thee. 


And he bought a parcel of 
a field, where he had spread 
his tent; 

And he erected there an 
altar, and called it El-Elohe- 
Israel. 


Now Israel loved Joseph 
more than all his children, be- 









142 


Literal Translation from the Hebrew. 


of his children, for a Successor 
of Elders after him; and he 
made for him a Garment of 
Supplication. 

Gen. xlviii. 13.—Then Jo¬ 
seph took both of them; 
Ephraim on his right towards 
the left of Israel, but with 
Manasseh on his left, towards 
the right of Israel, when he 
approached before him. 

. 14. — Now Israel 

stretched forth his right hand, 
which he put on the head of 
Ephraim, even the younger, 
and his left on the head of 
Manasseh, wisely with his 
hands, for Manasseh was the 
first born. 

■ ■ — 15.—Then he bless¬ 

ed Joseph, and said, The God, 
before whom my fathers Abra¬ 
ham and Isaac walked, the 
God who feedeth me even 
continually to this day, 

16.—The messenger 
who delivered me from all 
harm, he will bless the youths; 
yea, he will call them by my 
name, even the name of my 
fathers Abraham and Isaac; 
and they will increase to a 
multitude in the midst of the 
earth. 


Septuagint Version. 


'' • r » ~ 5 / *.\ 

vi o$ yypus yv xvru * twoiyae de 
xvry y^iruvx ryoixiXov* 


A xQuv ’la iay<P rovs $vo viols 
avlS, rov re ’E <ppxtp. lv ry ^e^ix, 
1% xpialtpuv Hie lapxy\, rov Ma- 
votary e? xpialepiov, ex oe^iojv os 
laptzyAj yyyiaev avlov ? xvla. 


’Exrei'vxs It ’i apxyX ryv y/lpoo 
ryv let-iav, t7rt£a\sv litl ryv xttyx- 
Xyv *E <ppxl[A, « ros cil yv o vturepos, 
xxi ryv apialtpav sari ryv xtipxXyv 
Mavxaay , ivxX\a,% rus yeipxs* 


Ksu' evXoyyaev avlovs, xxi tltrev, 
O ©£o$, u evyptalyaxv oi zjotlepeq 
[aov Ivutfiov avlov, AGpxap. xxi' 
’ laxax , o Geos o rpityuv [At tx vco - 
lyloq £ZJS ry$ y{Atpxs rxvlys, 

O ayytXos o pvofASvos (ab tx 
zjocvruv ruv xxxuv, svXoyyaui to 
•nail) lx rxvlx • xxt tTnxXyOyasixi 
tv avlofs to ovojAX (aov, xxi to 
"ovofAX ruv nxlepuv [aov A £px&[A 
xxi laxax, xxi zyXyQvvdeiyaxv els 
mXyQos vroXv lire rys yy ?. 











143 


Jerome's Version. 


quod in senectute genuisset 
eum; fecitque ei tunicam 
polymitam. 


Cumque tulisset eos Joseph, 
posuit Ephraim ad dextram 
suam, id est, ad sinistram Is¬ 
rael, Manassen vero in sinistra 
sua, ad dextram scilicet patri, 
applicuitque ambos ad eum. 

Qui extendens manum dex¬ 
tram, posuit super caput 
Ephraim, minoris fratris ; si¬ 
nistram autem super caput 
Manasse qui major natu erat, 
commutans manus. 


Benedixitque Jacob filiis 
Joseph, et ait, Deus, in cujus 
conspectu ambulaverunt pa- 
tres mei Abraham et Isaac, 
Deus qui pascit me ab ado- 
lescentia mea usque in pre- 
sentem diem, 

Angelus, qui emit me de 
cunctis malis,benedicat pueris 
istis, et invocetur super eos 
nomen meum, nomina quoque 
patrum meorum Abraham et 
Isaac, et crescant in multitu- 
dinem super terrain. 


Received Version. 


cause he was the son of his 
old age; and he made him a 
a coat of many colours. 


And Joseph took them both, 
Ephraim in his right hand to¬ 
ward Israel’s left hand, and 
Manasseh in his left hand to¬ 
wards Israel’s right hand, and 
brought them near unto him. 

And Israel stretched out 
his right hand, and laid it upon 
Ephraim’s head, who was the 
younger, and his left hand 
upon Manasseh’s head, guid¬ 
ing his hands wittingly; for 
Manasseh was the first born. 

And he blessed Joseph, and 
said, God before whom my 
fathers Abraham and Isaac 
did walk, the God which fed 
me all my life long unto this 
day, 

The Angel which redeemed 
me from all evil, bless the 
lads; and let my name be 
named on them, and the name 
of my fathers Abraham and 
Isaac; and let them grow 
into a multitude in the midst 
of the earth. 








144 


Literal Translation from the Hebrew. 


Gen. xlix. 10—The sceptre 
shall not depart from Judah, 
nor a law-giver from between 
his feet, till Shiloh come ; then 
the people shall congregate 
before Him. 

Exod. xxv. 1.—Now Je¬ 
hovah spake to Moses, saying, 

■ ■ ■ — 22.—I will com¬ 
mune with Thee from above 
the mercy seat, even between 
the two Cherubinis, which are 
above the ark of the testi¬ 
mony ; so that I will give 
Thee every commandment to 
the children of Israel. 

— xxx. 1.—Then thou 
shalt prepare an altar : 

— ■ 10.—For Aaron shall 

atone before the horns, once 
in the year ; with blood of the 
sin-offering of the atonements, 
once in the year he shall atone 
upon it. 

— xl. 13.—Then thou 
shalt clothe Aaron with con¬ 
secrated garments, and thou 
shalt anoint him; thus thou 
shalt consecrate him for a 
priest before me. 

-14.—Then with his 

sons thou shalt approach, and 
thou shalt clothe them with 
vests, 


Septuagint Version. 


Ova. JxAs/vJ/e* xp^uv 1 % ’lov&ac, 
kxi riyovpsvos Ik tuv pypuv avlov , 

>/ ? \ */, a \ > / ~. 

box; EXV EAfc/*J TO CX. 7 rOKElp.BVx avho' 

kxi xv log zrgo&ooKix evvcvv. 


K xi eXxhycTe K vpios zrpos Mo>v- 
<7v)V, Aeywy, 

TvuaOriropxi <roi Ike'iQev, kx »' 
\x\ri7ij (joi dvw^zv rov i\xcrlviptov 
xvx pzaov tuv (ivo XtpovGip, Tuv 
ovluv It u KiCcJiov rov paprvpiov, 

KXI KXTX ZJXvlx 07 X EXV EVTEl“ 

hopxi aoi TJpog rou? vloi/g ’l<7£a»iA. 


Ka< zjoiyixek; OvnarVigtov * 

Kaf e%i\x(7eIxi Itt avlov ’Axpuv 
E7TI T&/V KZpxrWV XV Its X7TXZ, T 8 
EV/XVliif X7 TO T« Xtpxlos rov KXVX- 

ftapS KxQxpisi'. 


K xi' e v&vrzis A xpuv rxs crroXxg 
rets ay las, kxs' xpiatis avlov , xaf 
xytxazis avlov , kxi iEpanvazt pot. 


K xi Tovg vtovs avrov zspoax^EtSy 
kxi Ivbveip avrovg xJlwvas, 


\ 













145 


Jerome's Version. • Received Version, 


Non auferetur sceptrum de 
Juda, et dux de femore ejus, 
donee veniat qui mittendus 
est, et ipse erit expectatio 
gentium. 

Locutusque est Dominus ad 
Moysen, dicens, 

Praecipiam, et loquar ad te 
supra propitiatorium ac de me¬ 
dio duorum Cherubim, qui 
erunt super arcam testimonii, 
cuncta quae mandabo per te 
filiis Israel. 

V *,‘.7 ■ 

Facies quoque altare: 

Et deprecabitur Aaron su¬ 
per cornua ejus semel per 
annum, in sanguine quod ob- 
latum est pro peccato, et pla- 
cabit super eo in generatio- 
nibus vestris. 


. * .. .- f 

Applicabisque Aaron etfilios 
ejus ad fores tabernaculi testi¬ 
monii, et lotos aqua indues 
sanctis vestibus, ut ministrent 
mihi, et unctio eorum in sacer- 
dotium sempiternum proficiat. 


The sceptre shall not depart 
from Judah, nor a lawgiver 
from between his feet, until 
Shiloh come; and unto him 
shall the gathering of the 
people be. 

And the Lord spake unto 
Moses, saying, 

I will commune with thee 
from above the mercy-seat, 
from between the two Cheru- 
bims, which are upon the ark 
of the testimony, of all things 
which I will give thee in com¬ 
mandment unto the children 
of Israel. 

And thou shalt make an 
altar: 

And Aaron shall make an 
atonement upon the horns of 
it once in a year with the 
blood of the sin-offering of 
atonements : once in the year 
shall he make atonement upon 
it. 

And thou shalt put upon 
Aaron the holy garments, and 
anoint him and sanctify him, 
that he may minister to me in 
the priest’s office. 

And thou shalt bring his 
sons, and cloathe them with 
coats: 

t n 

u 










146 


Literal Translation from the Hebrew. 


Ex. xl. 15.—And thou shalt 
anoint them as thou anointest 
their father; for they shall 
officiate before me, yea it shall 
be ordained for them, even 
their anointing, for an ever¬ 
lasting priesthood, throughout 
their generations. 

LEviT.i. 1.—Again he called 
to Moses; thus Jehovah spake 
to him in the tabernacle of the 
congregation, saying, 

- 2.—Speak to the 

children of Israel, for thou 
shalt say to them, A man 
surely shall bring to you an 
oblation before Jehovah; from 
the cattle, from the herd, and 
from the flock, ye shall ap¬ 
proach with your oblation. 

\ 

- 4.—He shall put his 
hand on the head of the offer¬ 
ing, which shall be accepted 
for him, to atone before him. 

— viii. 14.—Then he (Mo¬ 
ses) approached with the bul¬ 
lock of the sin-offering; and 
Aaron with his sons laid their 
hands on the head of the bul¬ 
lock of the sin-offering, 

-15.—Which he slew; 

and Moses took the blood— 
and purified the altar—Thus 
he sanctified it for atonement 
before him. 


Septuagint Version. 


K xi s aXst^sis xvlovs ov rpoitov 
v)\zi-\/us Toy zrxrspx xvluv, xa<' 
ispxlsvxovari (ao i • xxi sarxi, uale 
sivxi avlois xpIr/Ax is pare tag zU rov 
x]uvx, s<? r«; ysvsxi; zvlwv. 


K xi' xvtxxXtas M covcrjv, xa<' 
l\xXr,as K vpios xlru lx t55? owjvSjs 

TOV (AZplvpiOV , XlyWV, 

AxXnxov tok iuo~? I crpxviX, x.xi' 
spsTq 'ZJpoq av)ov?, "Av^p (OTTOS 
v(/.uv sxv 'GJgoa’xyolyYi $u>px raj 
Kvpicp , C67TO T uv xh, jvcov xxl XTTO Tcov 
Gouv xxi' CtTT 0 T (OV ZjpoGxTCOV, VJgO- 
(Tolasls ret Sugx vguv. 


v \ ♦ A f X ~ »\\ 

Kati eTTibYirsi TrjV X SI P <X e7Fl rviV 
XEtpxXriV TOV XXpTTUgxroS SfXToy 
xvtu, e^iXxo’xaQxt rsspi xvrov. 


Kaf rrspoa-riyxys Muvaris rov go- 
ayo* T ° v ^P 1 ocfAxprixq * xxi' 
s7TsQrixev ’Axpuv xxi ot viol xvra 
rocs %sfjj«? T *> v t« goa- 

%ov tov t?5? oeixaprlxs, 

K xi' sfftpxj’tv xvrov * K xi' zXxGz 
Mavo-Sjs xtto tov xlg.xros~v.xi' 
sxxQxpio-s to Qv<7ixar\'hpiov—xxi' s?- 
yixa-sv xv hf rov t%i\xerxervxt nr 
xvrov. 











147 


Jerome’s Version, 


Vocavit autem Moysen, et 
locutus est ei Dominus de ta- 
bernaculo testimonii, dicens, 

Loquere filiis Israel, et dices 
ad eos, Homo qui obtulerit ex 
vobis hostiam Domino de pe- 
coribus, id est, de bobus et 
ovibus offerens victimas. 


Ponetque manus super ca¬ 
put hostiae, et acceptabilis 
erit, atque in expiationem ejus 
profiens. 


Obtulit et vitulum pro pec- 
cato, cumque super caput 
ejus posuisset Aaron et filiis 
ejus manus suas, 


Received Version. 


And thou shalt anoint them, 
as thou didst anoint their fa¬ 
ther, that they may minister 
unto me in the priest’s office : 
for their anointing shall surely 
be an everlasting priesthood 
throughout their generations. 


And the Lord called unto 
Moses, and spake unto him 
out of the tabernacle of the 
congregation, saying, 

Speak unto the children of 
Israel, and say unto them, If 
any man of you bring an 
offering unto the Lord, ye 
shall bring your offering of 
the cattle, even of the herd, 
and of the flock. 

And he shall put his hand 
upon the head of the burnt- 
offering, and it shall be ac¬ 
cepted for him to make atone¬ 
ment for him. 


And he brought the bullock 
for the sin-offering; and Aaron 
and his sons laid their hands 
upon the head of the bullock 
for the sin-offering, 


Immolavit eum, hauriens 
sanguinem—tetigit cornua al- 
fearis—quo expiato et sancti- 
ficato— 


And he slew it; and Moses 
took the blood—and purified 
the altar—and sanctified it, 
to make reconciliation upon it. 








148 


Literal Translation from the Hebrew. 


, ■ - , 

Levit. viii. SO.—Moreover 

Moses took the oil of anoint¬ 
ing, and some of the blood 
that was upon the altar, which 
he sprinkled on Aaron—also 
upon his sons. Thus he con¬ 
secrated Aaron—also his sons. 


Numb. iii. 12. —I have taken 
the Levites from the midst of 
the children of Israel, instead 
of all the first-born among the 
children of Israel: therefore 
the Levites shall be mine. 


— viii. 14.—Thus shalt thou 
separate the Levites from the 
midst of the children of Israel, 
because the Levites shall be 
before me: 

-15.—Then thus af¬ 
terwards the Levites shall go, 
to serve in the tabernacle of 
the congregation: and thou 
shalt purify them, and offer 
them an offering: 

- 16.—For they are 

appointed, given to me from 
the midst of the children of 
Israel, instead of the first-born 
of all among the children of 
Israel. I have received them 
before me. 

- 19.—I have given 

the Levites a gift to Aaron, 


Septuagint Version. 


K xi sAataE M.uvms xiro t« 
sXxtov ms xP l<T£U( Z> X0Cl cc ' no rov 
al[xxrog rov liri rov Ovrixalyplov, 
xa/ v zjpoalppxvev eV/ ’Aotpwv —xxi 
rovs viovs avlov—Ktxi'' riylxasv^ Aot m 
puv —xa/' rovs viovs xvrov . 


’E<yw e^Xyi^x rovs AvjWxs ex p.1- 
aov ruv viuv, lapx’nX ay// way los 

ZypuloTOKOV \ XXI EXOvlat EfJLo} ot 

A evItxi. 


Kxi ^ixoIeXeTs rovs A ivlrxs lx 
plaov vlwv ’icrpa^A • xxt taovrxi 
ft ot. 


K a;' ftsra N rxvlx EiaE\Ev<rovlxi 
oi AevItxi Ipyx^EdOxi ra ipya. ms 
(rxmvs too (xxplvpiov * xxi' xaSa- 
pisTs xvTovs , xxi s xirobujEts avlovs 
Ivxvli Kvpiov * 

"Or/ airoSoiAX aTXO^E^oftEyo/ ovroi 
p, 0 { E/a/'v lx (xitrov y/o/v ’lepaviX * 
ay]/ ra/v rspuroroxuv raoivruv e \ 
ruv vtuv I apxyX EWytyx avlovs 

6/AO/. 


K xi amcWa rovg A ivlrxs awo- 
ciofta teW? ’A xpuv xxi ro7s 











149 


Jerome's Version. 


/ i * .. % 

Assumensque unguentum 

•V • > 

et sanguinem qui erat in al- 
tare, aspersit super Aaron— 
et super filios illius. Cumque 
sanctificasset eos— 


Ego tuli Levitas a filiis 
Israel, pro omni primo-genito: 
eruntque Levitae mei. 


Ac separabis (Levitas) de 
medio filiorum Israel ut sint 
mei. 


Et postea ingrediantur ta- 
bernaculum foederis: sicque 
purificabis et obsecrabis eos 
in oblationem Domini, 


Quoniam dono donati sunt 
mihi a filiis Israel. Pro pri- 
mogenitis—In Israel, accepi 
eos. 


Tradidi eos dono Aaron et 
filiis ejus de medio populi, ut 


Received Version. 


And Moses took of the 
anointing oil, and of the blood 
which was upon the altar, and 
sprinkled it upon Aaron—and 
upon his sons ; and sanctified 
Aaron—and his sons. 


I have taken the Levites 
from among the children of 
Israel, instead of all the first¬ 
born among the children of 
Israel: therefore the Levites 
shall be mine. 


Thus shalt thou separate 
the Levites from among the 
children of Israel: and the 
Levites shall be mine. 


And after that shall the 
Levites go in to do the service 
of the tabernacle of the con¬ 
gregation : and thou shalt 
cleanse them, and offer them 
for an offering. 

For they are wholly given 
unto me from among the chil¬ 
dren of Israel; instead of the 
first-born of all the children 
of Israel have I taken them 
unto me. 

I have given the Levites as 
a gift to Aaron, and to his 








150 


Literal Translation from the Hebrew. 


and to his sons, in the midst 
of the children of Israel, to 
serve in the service of the chil¬ 
dren of Israel, in the taber¬ 
nacle of the congregation, 
and to atone for the children 
of Israel. 


Numb. xxiv. 17.—A star 
will come from Jacob, and 
a sceptre will arise in Israel. 

■ ■ 19.—He will de¬ 
scend from Jacob, and cause 
a destruction of the service in 
the city. 


Septuagint Version. 


vio7<; xlrov lx pcstrov viav ’icrpa^A, 
Ipyx&Oxi roc ipyx ruv viav I apart?, 
iv Tv? crxvirp roil pcxplvp/ov, xxi~ l%i~ 
XccaxtaOxi wept rav viav I xpxriK. 


’AvxnXsT ocarpov e| ’iaxwC, 
xvxarwaErxi ccvOpuTrot; 1% ’lo-pxyh. 

K.«/' E^EyEpO-nxErxi e% ’laxwC, 
xxi xwoXei aa^opEVOv lx rjo'htus* 







I 


151 


i: 

♦* 


Jerome's Version . 


Serviant mihi pro Israel in 
tabernaculo foederis, et orent 
pro eis. 


Orietur Stella ex Jacob, et 
consurget virga de Israel. 

De Jacob erit qui domine- 
tur, et perdat reliquias civi- 
tatis. 


Received Version. 


sons from among the children 
of Israel, to do the service of 
the children of Israel in the 
tabernacle of the congrega¬ 
tion, and to make an atone¬ 
ment for the children of 
Israel. 


There shall come a star out 
of Jacob, and a sceptre shall 
rise out of Israel. 

Out of Jacob shall come he 
that shall have dominion, and 
shall destroy him that remain- 
eth of the city. 


V 






152 


In the sacred original, these passages form a 
connected chain of evidence, illustrative of most 
important truths, and placing them in the most 
luminous and irrefutable point of view. In the 
opposed translations, whatever maybe the‘value 
of each separate text, as a whole they prove no¬ 
thing conclusive on the subject. Should the 
reader concur with me in this opinion, he will be 
disposed to think that the translation, which bears 
such internal evidence of its truth, is in all proba¬ 
bility the most faithful to the sacred original. 

The matter is highly deserving of attention. It 
is a question of no less magnitude, than the choice 

between a blind adhesion to error, and a pure and 

. * 

perfect knowledge of the revealed Law of God. 
Which of these is preferable, which of them it is 
no less the interest than it is the duty of every 
reasonable and accountable being to adopt, can¬ 
not admit of a doubt. In such case, let us not 
be alarmed by any vain fear of temporary incon¬ 
venience, which ought not for a moment to weigh 
against the permanent and incalculable advan¬ 
tages attendant on such a measure. Let us, on 
the other hand, entertain a lively, and I trust a 
well-founded hope, that, should a similar con¬ 
viction be felt by those who govern our Church 
and State, they may be pleased to take the matter 
into consideration, and, as the necessity may ap¬ 
pear to require, direct an immediate revision of 
our Received Version, or, what might perhaps 
be more recommendable, a New Translation of 
the Original Text. 

f Printed by T. C. HansardD 
Peterboro’court, > 
Fleet-street, London. ) 


F I N I S. 




























































































ton « 

-ar A 


' 









































'*$ - ; N . 

























/■ 























V' f ■ 

iJ fU 









Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 














































































